Trump should not defy judges' orders, Americans say
M ost Americans believe President Trump has crossed the line with his criticism of the US court system and should not be allowed to defy judges' orders, polling for The Times shows.
After the president warned that 'nothing will stop me' and attacked 'communist radical-left judges' for trying to curb his power, a poll by Public First found that 56 per cent of respondents agreed that Trump had gone too far in his criticism, compared with 21 per cent who disagreed.
However, Trump retains support from those who voted for him last year. Among this group, only 30 per cent believed Trump had gone too far, with 42 per cent disagreeing.
Across both parties, most Americans believed that Trump should follow court rulings. Both Trump and Harris voters disagreed with the statement 'the president should be able to ignore rulings from the Supreme Court that go against their campaign pledges.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
16 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Keir Starmer to speak to nation after warning 'prepare for war in the UK'
The Prime Minister will take part in meetings at the NATO summit in the Hague. Keir Starmer is to give a press conference today - just a day after a UK Government document warned we must "actively prepare" for war. The Prime Minister will take part in meetings at the NATO summit in the Hague. A National Security Strategy dossier said the years ahead will be a test for the UK and that there will be a need for a WW2 -like spirit in the country. The document said the threat of nuclear weapons will be "more complex than it was even in the Cold War". It went on: "The years ahead will test the United Kingdom... The direction it takes – and the decisions we take – will reverberate through the decades. "We will need agility and courage to succeed, but we should be optimistic. "We remain a resolute country, rich in history, values and in our capabilities. But most of all, there is the determination of the British people themselves. "After all, we do not need to look too far into our history for an example of a whole-of-society effort, motivated by a collective will to keep each other safe. "We can mobilise that spirit again and use it both for our national security and the rebuilding of our country." Labour Defence Secretary John Healey said the Prime Minister trusts that Trump's America would come to the aid of NATO allies. He told Times Radio: "Do I trust President Trump and the US's commitment to Article 5? Yes. "So does our Prime Minister, and he does because in the Oval Office on his visit to the White House, President Trump gave him that commitment in public." Starmer has caused for Israel and Iran to maintain the pause in hostilities. In a conversation with the French and German leaders at on Tuesday, he "reflected on the volatile situation in the Middle East," according to a Downing Street spokeswoman. The leaders agreed that "now was the time for diplomacy and for Iran to come to the negotiating table", the spokeswoman added. It comes as intelligence reports in the US suggested that the American attack on Iran's nuclear programme over the weekend have only set it back by a few months, rather than destroyed it as Donald Trump previously suggested.
The Guardian
17 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The alarming rise of US officers hiding behind masks: ‘A police state'
Some wear balaclavas. Some wear neck gators, sunglasses and hats. Some wear masks and casual clothes. Across the country, armed federal immigration officers have increasingly hidden their identities while carrying out immigration raids, arresting protesters and roughing up prominent Democratic critics. It's a trend that has sparked alarm among civil rights and law enforcement experts alike. Mike German, a former FBI agent, said officers' widespread use of masks was unprecedented in US law enforcement and a sign of a rapidly eroding democracy. 'Masking symbolizes the drift of law enforcement away from democratic controls,' he said. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has insisted masks are necessary to protect officers' privacy, arguing, without providing evidence, that there has been an uptick in violence against agents. But, German argued, the longterm consequences could be severe. The practice could erode trust in the US law enforcement agencies: 'When it's hard to tell who a masked individual is working for, it's hard to accept that that is a legitimate use of authority,' he noted. And, he said, when real agents masks more frequently, it becomes easier for imposters to operate. German – who previously worked undercover in white supremacist and militia groups and is now a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, a non-profit – spoke to the Guardian about the dangers of officer masking, why he thinks officers are concealing themselves and how far the US has deviated from democratic norms. This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity. Were you surprised by the frequent reports of federal officers covering their faces and refusing to identify themselves, especially during the recent immigration raids and protests in Los Angeles? It is absolutely shocking and frightening to see masked agents, who are also poorly identified in the way they are dressed, using force in public without clearly identifying themselves. Our country is known for having democratic control over law enforcement. When it's hard to tell who a masked individual is working for, it's hard to accept that that is a legitimate use of authority. It's particularly important for officers to identify themselves when they are making arrests. It's important for the person being arrested, and for community members who might be watching, that they understand this is a law enforcement activity. Is there any precedent in the US for this kind of widespread law enforcement masking? I'm not aware of any period where US law enforcement officials wore masks, other than the lone ranger, of course. Masking has always been associated with police states. I think the masking symbolizes the drift of law enforcement away from democratic controls. We see this during protests. We see this in Ice raids. And we see this in the excessive secrecy in which law enforcement has increasingly operated since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. How does masking fit into the post-9/11 trends in American policing? After 9/11, there were significant changes to the law – the Patriot Act, expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, changes to FBI guidelines – that allowed mass warrantless surveillance. Those changes rolled back reforms that had been put in place to address law enforcement abuses, including the targeting of disfavored political activists. As the federal government greatly expanded its authority, state and local law enforcement adopted a similar approach they called 'intelligence-led policing'. That included the creation of 'fusion centers', in which state, local and federal law enforcement share information with each other and private sector entities. Roughly 80 fusion centers exist today, and there is very little oversight and regulation, and they operate under a thick cloak of secrecy, often targeting disfavored protest groups. Once police think of themselves as domestic intelligence agents rather than law enforcement sworn to protect the public, it creates this attitude that the public doesn't have a right to know what they're doing. And now that includes even hiding their identities in public. Why do you think some officers are masking? I have not had conversations with current officers, but I imagine some are masking because they don't normally work for Ice or do immigration enforcement, but are now being sent to do these jobs. [The Trump administration has diverted some federal officers from agencies like the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to support Ice, reportedly pushing agents who would be tackling violent crimes to instead handle civil immigration violations]. When these officers go home at night, they may not want people in their communities to know it was them. Maybe they have upstanding reputations because of the work they do for the FBI or ATF, and they don't necessarily want to be identified with this kind of indiscriminate targeting of immigrants. And that reluctance to be identified as engaging in those activities really highlights the illegitimacy of those actions. Are there concerns about having masked officers from other agencies working for Ice? Officers from other federal law enforcement agencies are used to operating within specific authorities, and they may not recognize that Ice enforcement actions don't necessarily allow for those same actions. When an FBI or ATF agent is seeking to arrest someone, they typically have a warrant signed by a judge and can go after that person even on private property. Ice's civil enforcement powers don't give them that authority. If Ice doesn't have a judicial warrant, they can't go into someone's home. So if the FBI is doing Ice enforcement, they have to understand their authority is limited in important ways in order to not violate the law. That's also why it's critical for agents to identify what agency they are with. Otherwise, it's hard to understand under what authority an action is being taken. Who is this person shoving a member of the public who is just asking questions? Historically, what are the basic standards and training for law enforcement showing their faces? I'm not aware of any general authority authorizing an agent not to identify themselves during public law enforcement activity. As a former FBI undercover agent, I tried to avoid getting my picture taken as much as possible. But it is a small number of individuals who engage in undercover operations who would require any kind of masking, and they have the option of not participating in arrests where they are going to be in public. A lot of training is about police safety. And part of that safety is having a clear indication that you are a law enforcement official when you're engaging in some type of activity that could involve use of force or arrest, including protest management. The badge was intended to protect the officer, to make it clear you're acting under the authority of the law and not just shoving somebody you don't like. As an FBI agent, if I was going to talk to a member of the public, I'd identify myself and display my credentials. It was routine. And anytime I would write up the interview for evidentiary purposes, the first thing I'd write was, I identified myself and let them know the purpose of the interview. Do you think lawmakers can address this issue with legislation? Some Democratic US senators have pushed Ice to require that agents identify themselves, and California lawmakers have introduced state legislation to ban law enforcement from masking on duty, arguing public servants have an obligation to show their faces – and not operate like Star Wars stormtroopers. Having clear laws, regulations and policies that require law enforcement to operate in an accountable fashion is critical. But a lot of this is about leadership. Law enforcement leaders are justifying masking as some dubious security measure instead of ensuring officers act in a professional manner at all times and holding them accountable when they don't. That has been a significant problem over time when police engage in illegal or unconstitutional activity. It's great when federal, state or local legislators pass laws requiring accountability, but those measures cannot be successful if police aren't expected by their own leaders to abide by those rules. What are the ongoing consequences of officers hiding their faces? The recent shootings of two Democratic lawmakers in Minnesota, by a suspect who allegedly impersonated an officer, highlights the danger of police not looking like police. Federal agents wearing masks and casual clothing significantly increases this risk of any citizen dressing up in a way that fools the public into believing they are law enforcement so they can engage in illegal activity. It is a public safety threat, and it's also a threat to the agents and officers themselves, because people will not immediately be able to distinguish between who is engaged in legitimate activity or illegitimate activity when violence is occurring in public. What are people supposed to do when they're not sure if an officer is legitimate? That question highlights the box that these tactics put Americans into. When they are not sure, the inclination is to resist, and that resistance is used to justify a greater use of force by the officers, and it creates this cycle that is harmful to people just trying to mind their business. And that can mean that these individuals are not just subject to use of force and very aggressive arrests on civil charges, but they could also face more serious criminal charges. The more illegitimate police act, the more resistance to their activities will result. And if the public doesn't trust officers, it becomes very difficult for them to do their jobs.
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump is driving the Nato agenda - but he may still leave the alliance hanging when it needs the US the most
Many expected this Nato summit to be the most significant since the Cold War ended. And as we enter the final day of the conference, it was clear they were right. With escalating pressure in the Middle East, the looming backdrop of war in Ukraine and an increasingly volatile US president, tensions on the global stage are the highest they have been in recent history. Britain's decision to purchase 12 new F-35A jets - to be formally announced by the prime minister at a press conference today - is a big one. Ministers dubbed it the 'biggest strengthening of the UK's nuclear posture in a generation', primarily because it restores a nuclear role for the RAF for the first time since the Cold War. The aircraft, which the MoD estimates will cost £70-80m per jet, are expected to carry US B61 bombs - the primary thermonuclear gravity bomb in the United States Enduring Stockpile. It is a massive show of force in the face of growing questions over Britain's defensive capabilities. But, notably for Britain to use these tactical weapons, the approval of the US would need to be sought. It's a clear win for Trump: not only is Britain massively ramping up its nuclear capabilities, it is also doing so in a way that gives the White House more influence over it. It comes amid a backdrop of a much wider mission to win over the US president, with Nato countries increasingly bending over backwards to secure the approval of the unpredictable White House. Nato's collective agreement to ramp up defence spending to 5 per cent – doubling its previous target of 2.5 per cent - is yet another example of this. It is a huge jump for a group of nations which are, collectively, fairly strapped for cash (and many of them, such as Spain and Portugal, already fall short of the current target). Meanwhile, world leaders are also throwing all their soft power at winning the approval of the US president. Just yesterday, Trump shared a series of obsequious texts from Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte. 'Mr. President, dear Donald, Congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran, that was truly extraordinary, and something no one else dared to do. It makes us all safer,' Rutte wrote. 'You are flying into another big success in The Hague this evening. It was not easy but we've got them all signed onto 5 per cent! 'Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe, and the world. You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done,' he added. 'Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win.' Rutte's tactics, while perhaps slightly more embarrassing now they've been revealed to the world, are not dissimilar to Sir Keir Starmer presenting the US president with a handwritten letter from the King offering him an unprecedented second state visit. The incentive to win over the US comes from a clear understanding that Nato cannot properly function without US military muscle, which, alongside Germany, is the biggest contributor to alliance funds. It comes after Trump's repeated threats to pull out of the alliance if it does not properly pull its weight on defence spending. Now that Nato countries are putting real muscle behind their promises to Trump, the question over whether this will result in true commitment from the US president continues to hang over the summit. Just yesterday, the day after Britain committed to reaching the 5 per cent target and Starmer reaffirmed his belief that Trump is a reliable ally, the US president declined to commit to Article 5 - the principle of collective defence and a key pillar of the alliance. While he appeared to recommit to the concept the following day, saying 'we are with them all the way', his ability to shift from one position to another at a time of such global tension raises serious doubts over whether or not Nato's huge increase in its defensive capability will have any real impact when it comes to securing a solid commitment from the US. MoD sources insisted that Britain wants to put itself in a strong position on the world stage because of the broader global situation. The UK wants to be well prepared, they said, so that even if Trump left office tomorrow, the country would still be in a strong position. But, even so, there's no denying that this arms race is being pushed faster and faster by Trump. Rutte was clear: the US president has pushed the West to a very significant moment. Clearly, Trump is driving the agenda at Nato. But as his volatility continues, there is an ever-present risk that the US president leaves the alliance hanging at a time when it needs the US the most.
