logo
Cory Booker: ‘People Want to Know You Give a Shit'

Cory Booker: ‘People Want to Know You Give a Shit'

Yahoo07-05-2025

Cory Booker had been railing against Donald Trump's agenda from the floor of the Senate for three hours when his feet started to go numb. On the lectern he had his cellphone out (against Senate rules), with his family group chat pulled up. Every now and then it pinged with a message of encouragement, or a photo of an absurdly shredded bald dude — the motivational speaker, ultramarathoner, and former Navy SEAL David Goggins — instructing him to 'STAY HARD.'
Booker's family read Goggins' book together back in 2021, his cousin Pam tells me. 'We developed our own internal language, like: 'Stop feeling sorry for yourself. Stop acting like you're doing something hard. Let's Goggins it out.'… Anytime we thought we were suffering, we'd say, 'Well, have you broken both of your legs and taped them up with duct tape and cardboard and gone and run 10 miles like David Goggins did?''
Booker started shifting from one foot to another as he spoke, rocking back and forth, trying to regain sensation in his lower extremities. By the time he finished speaking, 22 hours later, pillowy puffs of synthetic fiber had gathered in piles around his feet. He'd worn holes in the Senate floor's royal-blue carpet, but he had Goggins'd it out, surpassing the record set by the South Carolina senator Strom Thurmond, who filibustered, but failed to stop, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
By the next Saturday, after shaking each hand and grinning obligingly in every selfie following a town hall in Paramus, New Jersey, Booker sinks into the back of a black SUV, exhausted. 'I had food delivered to my house this morning — fruit and stuff like that, for energy — Amazon says it was delivered, but there was nothing on my doorstep, so I have no food at home,' he says, mournfully. 'I just wanted some fruit to wake up to.' For Booker, a vegan for more than a decade, there will be no pit stop for Jersey's famous Taylor Ham, but we're just about to pass one of Newark's handful of vegan restaurants, and it's still open. He bounds through the door triumphantly — only to be told they've just sold clean out, so he heads to the ice cream shop (also vegan) next door.
You might think by this point in the week, Booker would be tired of talking, but in case you failed to grasp this watching his 25-hour speech, this is a guy who loves to yap. Within a few minutes, he's learned every detail of the ice cream shop owner's backstory, persuaded her to make him his own cookie-dough-filled ice cream flavor (he already had a name in mind: Dough Unto Others), and he's recorded a video message to her husband, telling him, 'We both know you married up!' Booker himself has never been married. A relationship with the actress Rosario Dawson ended in 2022, but the pair remain friendly. After his speech, Dawson posted on Instagram, 'We're so proud of you. Go sleep now.' (Booker ate a banana and went straight into making a live appearance on The Rachel Maddow Show instead.)
At 56, Booker still retains the boyish pluck from back when he was elected the youngest councilman in Newark's history at the time. There, Booker quickly figured out that harnessing the attention of the media was the best option he had to effect change in the city. His first year in office, he set up a tent outside of Garden Spires, a notorious drug- and crime-plagued housing project, where he slept for 10 days, refusing food, and successfully shamed the mayor and landlord into improving conditions.
Booker keeps a map of Newark's Central Ward on the wall of his Senate office in Washington, D.C., beside bookshelves festooned with pop-culture memorabilia. Back in his office at the Capitol a few days after our drive through Newark, he shows off his boxed, mint-condition Lt. Nyota Uhura Star Trek figurine, his Broadway-cast recording of The Wiz ('I was crying, watching the stage in '74. I was only five years old, and they took me back to see it three times'), and The Wall Street Journal's original pointillist portrait of Martin Luther King Jr.
Booker offers me water in a Batman-branded pint glass, and sips from his own Green Lantern one. He talks like a pinball machine, a dizzying, discursive style that ricochets from one point of reference to the next. One question might elicit a 16-minute soliloquy that begins with the birth of his father, weaves through the long arc of American history, and the shorter arc of his own life and political career, name-checking the New York Times writer Ezra Klein, Oprah Winfrey, Tyler Perry, the gospel singer Mahalia Jackson, and half a dozen of his congressional colleagues along the way. Printing that answer alone, in full, would take up more than double the amount of space allotted for this interview. So here, edited for length and clarity, are the best bits of Booker's two-part conversation with Rolling Stone.
What was the moment you committed to a marathon speech on the Senate floor?
The fight over the continuing [budget] resolution [and whether Senate Democrats should give Republicans the votes needed]. We had three heated caucus meetings in a row, and the yelling inside got so bad the reporters on the outside were hearing [us], and staff on the outside would be texting: 'You guys need to quiet down.'
When we made that decision [to give Republicans enough votes to pass the budget], I felt so deflated — and then heard from my constituents this eruption of frustration. I went back to my staff, and I said that we need to take some individual action. I'd been hearing that challenge from constituents: 'Take risks! Do something! We don't feel like you're doing enough.'
I'm here because we did unorthodox protests when I was coming up in Newark. When you are technically powerless — when I was a city councilperson, they had all the votes, and [Mayor] Sharpe James was a very powerful person — it forced me to think out of the box.
The speech reminded me of your Garden Spires demonstration in that way.
That was the moment that's most parallel in terms of: I was ready to quit. There was a woman who walked me up and down Garden Spires to get me elected, saying to people, 'This kid just got here, you don't know him, but you know me, this is who we're gonna support.' I wouldn't be here today without her — I think we got into the runoff by just 12 votes.
A year later, she's calling me for help, and I'm telling her I can't help her. [Right now,] a lot of Democrats are saying, 'We don't have the votes, we can't help.'
When I got out to Garden Spires, [that woman], Elaine Sewell, came over to me, and I thought she was going to get mad at me — because we had literally yelled at each other on the phone, and I hung up on her — but she saw me and treated me like the prodigal son, and I realized: I was yelling at her, telling her I couldn't do it, and I didn't even go there. I didn't even show up. That, really, was what she wanted. She just wanted me to show that I cared enough to come out and stand with her, or listen to her, you know? I think people understand that their politicians aren't going to wave a wand [and fix everything]. They want to know you give a shit.
'I'd been hearing from constituents, 'Do something!'' Booker tells Rolling Stone of his record-setting speech.
How did you prepare, physically?
I had the benefit of Chris Murphy's 2016 stand. [Booker stood alongside the Connecticut senator as he held the floor for 14 hours and 50 minutes in protest of the government's inaction on gun control.] I got a lot of data from what I was really facing. I realized the going-to-the-bathroom thing, which was the biggest thing I was obsessed with, was not as hard as being on your feet for 15 hours. It gave me a lot of data to think about: OK, how am I gonna biologically hack myself to make it through? I said, I'm gonna fast until I get to ketosis, because I know that when my liver has burned through all the glycogen, then you shift to burning ketones, you get very focused and a lot of energy — I learned that from my intermittent-fasting days.
I stopped drinking water the night before, and 24 hours of not drinking was too much. I didn't need to do it. By the end, as I felt my hands and leg muscles cramping up, I realized I was definitely dehydrated, and I just started shooting water in the last five hours, saying, 'Screw it about the bathroom thing.' I knew if I made it past the 20th hour, I could go for the record, and that adrenaline would probably pull me through.
Why not filibuster an actual piece of legislation?
The way the modern Senate works is they often will use procedural tactics to never give the opposition a chance to come in, so doing a real filibuster is very, very hard. In the modern Senate, it's very hard to even get control of the floor. I said to my team, 'How did Ted Cruz get control of the floor? How did Rand Paul? Figure out how they got control.' The person in the cloakroom told me, very annoyingly, 'We let [Rand Paul take the floor] because he promised it was only going to be a couple minutes — and he lied through his teeth.… Are you willing to lie to [Senate Majority Leader John] Thune?' I said, 'That's not the way I roll. I'm not going to lie, so let's just let them know that I'm going to take control of the floor and hold it for as long as I possibly can.'
There was this powerful moment where you shouted out Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, and it almost felt like you were trying to resurrect the spirit of bipartisanship from the energy you'd created in the room. Do you have any hope for bipartisanship at this point?
I definitely do. I have enough conversations with Republicans now who will tell me things privately that many won't say publicly. There are people that don't agree with some things that the president's doing, and that shows me that there's potential to stop those things from happening. The only hope we have of stopping some of the big things that I think are most menacing about the Trump administration is to get votes from the other side. You can't get that if you are demeaning and degrading and don't give anybody a pathway for them to do the right thing — a pathway for them to act out of conscience and not necessarily their politics.
'If anything, this last election shows us that who the candidate is matters.'
When you were a member of the Newark City Council, an executive from your own party, Mayor James, threatened and bullied you. Can you relate to your Republican colleagues, those who feel threatened by Trump, on that level?
No. I mean, look: There were definitely really scary times in Newark when cops would warn me, 'We're following you.' My father was always flipped out about, would somebody try to set me up? Like plant drugs in my [car or] whatever. There's a lot of physical fear or worry that I had in my early career — I still remember, when Faith Hochberg, this federal judge, was warning me, 'You are not safe.' She made me connect her with my mother because she just didn't think I was taking the threat seriously enough. One of my supporters hired a former Mossad agent to assess my security. He basically tells him: This guy is screwed. He is being followed. He lives in these projects that don't have any security.
How did Democrats end up in the position they're in today? And how do they get out of it?
There's lots of good autopsies that have talked about a generation of Democrats that have lost their connection to farmers, or certain unions, and the working class. Yet you still had an Obama wave, for example, and then you saw the famous Obama-to-Trump voters. I think that speaks to what is really important, which is: Are we, as a party or as individuals who are running for office, finding ways to make voters believe that we have a vision for them, that we see them and we are standing for them? You have to remember, there are multiple states where Trump won [in November] and the Democratic senator won, so clearly Democratic senators who overcame all of that, their message was: 'Hey, I see you. I'm going to fight for you,' so much so that people ticket-split. If anything, this last election shows us that who the candidate is matters. Clearly, we had great messengers in our party who overcame pretty tough obstacles.
I want to get back to being a party — or at least I want to be a leader that doesn't just talk about what I'm against, but what I'm for. To inspire people about the possibilities for themselves, their families, and our nation. Like, 'Hey, yes, things are really bad right now. I'm going to stand up and do everything I can to stop him from hurting you or violating the democratic principles and ideals that we all should be affirming and fighting for.'
But, even in this period, I think it's important that we center people and stand up for them and let them know that my focus isn't Donald Trump. My focus is you, and that's why I'm fighting. But it is important we're providing a compelling vision for America that gets people to believe, again, in us. Forget Democrats, when I say 'us,' I mean believe in America. Believe that the American dream has meaning.
What does that vision look like to you? Can you be specific?
There's a lot of cynicism now that's growing with Americans feeling like they can't live a better life than their parents, and there's a lot of unfortunate data that backs that up. From 1940 to 1980, there was this massive explosion in the middle class. Social mobility in our country was pretty extraordinary. Now, we're more of a classist, more of a static society than even England. But the technological frontiers of this generation create radical possibilities that our parents couldn't even conceive of.
What do you mean by that?
I believe in the democratizing force of technology — that gaps that we have right now, where education is still so dependent upon what ZIP code you're born in, where access to capital, whether you're an artist or an entrepreneur, is still very based upon 'Do you have the privilege to have a social network?' Our generation has an opportunity to get away from the binary tribalism and get back to the renewal of the American idea, to make it real to people — and more than anything, accessible to people. This is why people like Ezra Klein fire me up, because he's absolutely right in his book Abundance — don't tell me the United States of America is a nation of scarcity! We have the most abundant society on the planet Earth. The issue is not having enough resources. It's allocating them efficiently and effectively.
Abundance has sparked a debate about whether things like zoning regulations and environmental lawsuits — features of Democratic-governed states — hamper American progress. Do you agree with the thesis?
I think it is right on the major thematic conclusions, but, obviously, I read it in a much more sophisticated way from my own experience. [When I was mayor of Newark,] we were in a recession and I've got to grow our economy, I've got to create jobs because the unemployment rate is 20-plus percent, and one of the things I saw as an easy answer was the port area.
In Newark, kids have asthma rates four times higher because the port, the highways, the airport are all there. They breathe in horrible toxins, and around the port, I have all these brownfields, all this fallow land. If we could build acres and acres of warehouses right here, those trucks don't have to idle and drive, you can get [that container-ship cargo] right into the warehouses, it's a win-win. EPA, all of these regulators, were trying to stop me from doing something that would clean up my environment. I still remember having this big fight because they wanted the groundwater standards at my port area to be the same as residential. I'm like, 'That is utterly stupid. We're gonna cap the land, there's no hazard to people working there.' I was furious at the red tape and how much they were trying to slow my sprint. I had to beg, borrow, and threaten, often, to get people to move a lot quicker. So that experience supports the book's conclusion.
Booker's Senate office in D.C. is packed with pop-culture memorabilia.
Happy birthday, by the way. How did you celebrate?
I sat on the Capitol steps for about 12 and a half hours [with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, to protest the GOP budget and its proposed cuts to Medicaid].
I saw that, and it made me wonder if you have any downtime, or have you largely had to sacrifice a personal life for your career?
Especially in my early years, I lived a more one-dimensional life. I have a richer life now than I did as mayor. I didn't understand then that having an enriching personal life makes you better in your service and grounds you more in joy and happiness. Out there on the steps of the Capitol, I had a lot of family members and people close to me. Afterwards, we went back to Hakeem's office, and he generously had a birthday cake for me, and I had some of the people I'm closest to there to tease me, and make me laugh at myself, and love on me.
But I have diverse interests. I love reading. I'm a movie addict.
What was the last thing you saw in theaters?
God, has it been so long that it was Wicked? I'm a huge sci-fi fan and superhero fan, and just a movie fan in general. I came of age in the time of Star Wars, Rocky, E.T. It was my dad who made me such a crazy Star Trek fan. He loved this bold, optimistic view of the future: They banish poverty, they have created a unified Earth, and they're vegetarians. On the bridge of the Enterprise, you've got Asian Americans, African Americans, aliens, and white folks.
And I love music. I wake up and listen to podcasts that give me the news of the day, and then by the time I'm working out, it's whatever music can get me most pumped up.
Like what?
I can pull up my Spotify Wrapped from last year. I think I should give you the honest facts. My top 2024 songs: On top is Beyoncé — 'Texas Hold 'Em,' which I think I played way too much. Bruce Springsteen. Stevie Wonder. Lots of gospel music. Oh, Bon Jovi's 'You Give Love a Bad Name' made it into the top 20. 'The Color Purple,' Cynthia Erivo's song, I played a lot last year.
'When you are technically powerless, you think outside the box.'
You governed Newark through the last economic downturn. What are your fears for similar communities around the country if we do dip into another recession?
It was economic carnage in Newark. We had foreclosures that were epidemic throughout every neighborhood in Newark. We were seeing people losing their homes, losing their jobs. We had to cut our workforce by 25 percent — one out of every four workers in City Hall — because we couldn't print money. We had to live within the budget that we had. For me, as a leader during that period, every day you're just choosing from bad or worse. And you're seeing, everywhere you go, levels of hardship and suffering and struggle. You have people from food banks complaining to you that they're running out of resources.
Right now, there's a lot of talk about tariffs, talk about people's 401(k)'s losing value — we've heard from people who are putting off retirement. It could put people into a financial free fall, pushing them further into relying on payday lenders and other ways to get access to resources, which again just puts people into a debt spiral, causes bad, bad outcomes — from losing housing for children to, frankly, other measures that are painful to think about, or relive.
How did being in Israel on Oct. 7 influence your view on the war in Gaza, and your support for arms sales to Israel?
We were going over to meet with Palestinian leaders in the West Bank, because the Saudis were really close to normalizing [relations]. The irony of it — and this is probably pride coming before the fall — but we were talking with this real sense of joy that, for the first time in our lives, we saw a real pathway to a two-state solution. [Benjamin] Netanyahu, we really believed, was going to be boxed in because he desperately wanted normalization with the Saudis — which was the big win — but the only pathway was to commit to an irrevocable path to a two-state solution. That's what we went over there feeling really excited about.
When I left, after the horrors of that day — basically, the State Department surrounded us with security folks and we were in and out of the bomb shelter, and they said, 'We need to get out.' Since then, it's nothing short of a painful reality for my office and myself, seeing the ways Hamas is getting exactly what they want, which is the focus being on Israel as the villain, and not the focus on Hamas and what they're doing, even today, to quell people that are trying to protest against them.
Now, Bernie [Sanders] has brought these resolutions of disapproval [for arms sales to Israel to the Senate floor]. I respect his right to do that. They have no chance of passing in the Senate or the House of Representatives. If anything, they create more division amongst Democrats who, if you polled us, all want a ceasefire and the return of hostages. All of us do. We want a cessation of these hostilities, and we want a pathway back to a two-state solution. I think what he's doing is symbolic, not substantive. We're looking to make a substantive change, and we're going to continue to advocate for that.
Are you going to run for president in 2028?
It would be the biggest malpractice of my life if I didn't tell you I am running for reelection two years before that election. I want to be reelected as a New Jersey senator, and my focus is to let my state know I am 100 percent focused.
What draws you to work in the Senate right now? It can seem like a pretty frustrating and thankless job, especially as a Democrat.
Coming here 13 years ago, I was the only Black person in the caucus, and this was the least diverse place I had ever worked. At the Judiciary Committee, every senator was white, and every staffer behind them was white. But when you leave here, and the night shift is coming in to do the work of keeping up the Capitol were predominantly people of color. As a guy who came out of Newark, I saw how the decisions they were making — like the Crime Bill of '94 — disproportionately impacted communities of color. I was stunned at how little diversity this place had. Being the only senator who lives in a community below the poverty line, I know I've been able to champion issues and causes that weren't being picked up at the time, like founding the Environmental Justice Caucus. Why? Because I know what lead does to children. I know what Superfund sites do.
Why do I love being here? It's as hard as hell. It's frustrating as hell. But I tell my team to always look for singles and doubles — and we get a lot — especially when we are advocating for a constituent that did not get the veterans' benefits they deserve, or what have you. But sometimes you hit home runs — like the child tax credit.
As a mayor, I could show you some of the proudest things that I've accomplished in my life, but that city is 300,000 people. In this job, I can do things that affect the whole state of New Jersey — 9 million-plus — and the nation as a whole. I love this job. I feel like I'm making a big difference, and sometimes the difference you make is just standing up and advocating for issues that not enough people are standing up for.
More from Rolling Stone
Best of Rolling Stone
Sign up for RollingStone's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

New York legislature passes medical aid in dying bill
New York legislature passes medical aid in dying bill

Yahoo

time22 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

New York legislature passes medical aid in dying bill

Jun. 10—ALBANY — The New York state legislature has passed a bill to legalize physician-assisted suicide, a program supporters are calling "medical aid in dying." On Monday evening, with just a few days left for voting for the scheduled legislative session, the state Senate voted to pass its copy of the legislation. The state Assembly passed it earlier this year, and the bill now awaits Gov. Kathleen C. Hochul's decision to sign, veto or amend the legislation. Under the terms of the bill, people with a terminal illness who have an estimated six months or less before their disease will kill them can ask their physician for a prescription for life-ending drugs, which they can take home and consume on their own. The legislation has some protections, requiring a physician to evaluate the patient's ability to make decisions and refer them for psychiatric evaluation if there are questions over capacity. Patients have to make an oral and written request for the life-ending drugs, and the request be witnessed by two adults who are not closely related to the patient or likely to benefit after their death. It also permits medical professionals to recuse themselves from requests for medically assisted suicide, ordering them to refer requests they refuse to other doctors. Supporters of the bill say it will give New Yorkers suffering from terminal illnesses a safe, humane way to end their lives. They point to cases where terminally ill people have chosen to stop eating or drinking or chosen to end their lives in other, not legally sanctioned ways. Opponents of the bill raise concerns over the message it sends to sick people, that they should choose death rather than fight for their health, as well as practical concerns over whether the medication that would be prescribed could be a health hazard if not properly stored. They also expressed concerns over the bill's approach to how the death will be recorded. Under the bill's terms, someone who takes advantage of the program would have their cause of death listed as their terminal illness, not the ingestion of life-ending drugs. They also raised concerns over the lack of post-dispensation tracking for the lethal drugs, raising concerns they could be misused. The bill has circulated in Albany for nearly a decade, going most years without a floor vote in either chamber. Just last year, it lacked majority support in the Senate, but a successful lobbying effort this year pushed it to approval in the Assembly and now in the Senate. Debate stretched into Monday evening, with detractors in the Senate expressing concern. Sen. Steven D. Rhoads, R-Nassau, questioned why the bill doesn't include a specific requirement that doctors review a patient's medical records before prescribing the medication. "There is nothing in the bill that requires that," he said during floor debate. But proponents of the bill said it's a meaningful step towards medical autonomy and the right to choose — Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, D-Manhattan, the Senate sponsor of the bill, said that some identified gaps in the bill will be filled in the regulation-crafting process with the state Department of Health, which will be tasked with overseeing the implementation and authorization necessary to allow New York doctors and pharmacies to dispense these lethal medications. The lobbying isn't over yet. A major opponent of the bill, the New York State Catholic Conference, took to the halls of the Capitol on Monday in a last-ditch effort to kill the bill's chances in the Senate. Their effort was unsuccessful, but they've continued to push the governor to reject the bill. Sen. Mark C. Walczyk, R-Sackets Harbor, said in a statement that he was sad to see the bill pass. "I have tremendous sympathy for those with terminal illnesses and respect families who face end-of-life decisions," Walczyk said in a statement. "This legislation lacks critical protections for the vulnerable, structurally incentivizes suicide, and devalues human life. We need only look at the examples of states and nations that have promoted this policy. Instead of providing an option for individuals to end their lives, we should focus on improving health care for the vulnerable and enhancing hospice and palliative care for the terminally ill to ensure that every New Yorker has access to compassionate support during their most vulnerable moments, rather than offering a misguided solution that encourages despair."

Tesla could lose billions in revenue as Trump administration weighs eliminating a key regulatory credit loophole
Tesla could lose billions in revenue as Trump administration weighs eliminating a key regulatory credit loophole

Yahoo

time29 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Tesla could lose billions in revenue as Trump administration weighs eliminating a key regulatory credit loophole

Senate Republicans are proposing the elimination of penalties for not abiding by certain fuel efficiency standards. These penalties would render regulatory credits, an incentive for auto companies to abide by the standards, essentially useless. Tesla relies on these credits for a chunk of its revenue, racking up $2.67 billion from them in 2024. As Tesla stock sputters following CEO Elon Musk's feud with President Donald Trump, the EV maker is facing yet another threat from the administration. Republicans are doubling down on efforts to weaken carbon emission standards for the auto industry, which have provided opportunities for companies producing eco-friendly vehicles, such as Tesla, to receive and sell regulatory credits for profit. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation proposed last week eliminating penalties for companies not meeting certain economy fuel standards set to mitigate carbon emissions. The proposal is included in the committee's portion of Trump's sweeping budget bill. After Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards were introduced in 1975 as a means of setting standards for fuel efficiency, a credits program emerged following lobbying efforts from auto companies looking to be paid to produce lower emission vehicles. Auto companies that produce a certain amount of energy-efficient cars are given a number of credits, depending on how eco-friendly their manufactured vehicles are. Companies are required to have a certain number of credits annually. While Tesla is able to easily attain these credits as a producer of cars that don't run on gas, other manufacturers, like Ford and Stellantis, are not. Therefore, they buy credits from Tesla, who can sell those credits for practically 100% profit. The Senate committee's proposal would eliminate certain CAFE penalties, rendering the need to have credits useless, Chris Harto, senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports, told Fortune in an email. 'It also would essentially turn the CAFE standards into nothing more than a reporting requirement with no consequences for automakers who fail to improve the efficiency of the vehicles they sell,' he said. The committee argued the provision would 'modestly' bring down the cost of cars by eliminating CAFE penalties. These CAFE credits have been a boon for Tesla, which has been battered by CEO Musk's controversial involvement in—and departure from—the Trump administration. The EV-maker made $2.76 billion from regulatory credits in fiscal 2024 and $595 million in the first quarter of 2025, according to earnings reports. Tesla reported $420 million in net income the same quarter, meaning without the regulatory credit, the company would not have been profitable. 'A key element of Tesla's profitability has been its ability to generate credits because it makes zero emissions, and sell those credits to more polluting car companies like GM and Ford and Stellantis—primarily gas-guzzlers that don't really want to make clean cars,' Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Transport Campaign at the Center for Biological Diversity, told Fortune. 'By taking away these credits, they're taking away a key element of Tesla's profitability,' he added. Tesla did not respond to Fortune's request for comment. The Senate committee's proposal is one of several efforts by the Trump administration to cut auto sustainability standards. Last month the Senate passed legislation blocking a California effort to ban gas-powered vehicles and mandate sales of only zero-emission cars and light trucks by 2035. The bill, should it be signed by the president, would take a $2 billion bite out of Tesla's revenue, according to JPMorgan analysts. Also in Trump's massive budget bill is the elimination at the end of this year of tax credits up to $7,500 for buyers of certain Tesla and other EV models, which would cost $1.2 billion of Tesla's full-year profit, the analysts calculated. Tesla's credit headaches extend across the Atlantic Ocean. Regulatory credits are common in Europe and Asia, and the European Union, for example, gives credits to European automakers who sell a certain number of zero-emission cars. But as Tesla sales crater overseas—including falling by 49% in April—the EV maker may not be able to reach the number of sales necessary to gain credits. As of April, Tesla—grouped with Ford and Stellantis in a manufacturing pool to achieve the EU's emission standards—are still short of the target, according to a report from the International Council on Clean Transportation. Poor sales could jeopardize Tesla's ability to rack up credits. 'If things go bad for Tesla and they don't sell enough cars this year, they might not have enough credits for what they promised Stellantis and the others,' ICCT managing director Peter Mock told Politico in March. 'Tesla is under pressure.' This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOGE's Supreme Court victory is a huge loss for Americans' privacy
DOGE's Supreme Court victory is a huge loss for Americans' privacy

The Hill

time37 minutes ago

  • The Hill

DOGE's Supreme Court victory is a huge loss for Americans' privacy

The six justices comprising the far-right majority on the Supreme Court just radically endorsed a sweeping intrusion into the privacy of hundreds of millions of Americans by the Department of Government Efficiency or 'DOGE,' without so much as the pretense of a justification. One must seriously wonder what their endgame really is, because it's not about upholding the law. With the exception of a reference to the Treasury Department, the Constitution says nothing about federal agencies. Congress creates them pursuant to its Article I powers to legislate. But Congress did not pass any legislation creating the Department of Government Efficiency. It was declared into existence by President Trump via executive order when he took office in January. What's more, for the real federal agencies that Congress actually creates, Article II of the Constitution mandates that their officers — the agency heads or 'secretaries' — must be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. The outgoing 'head' of DOGE, Elon Musk, was neither. Congressionally created agency heads are also confined to the job descriptions established under a governing statute for each particular agency. For DOGE, Trump directed the actual federal agencies to create 'DOGE Teams' to 'coordinate their work' with Musk and to 'advise their respective Agency Heads on implementing the President's DOGE Agenda.' This kind of uber-power over agencies is constitutionally unprecedented. The point of mandating Senate confirmation of agency heads is of course to enable elected representatives of the people to gather information about a candidate's qualifications and possible disqualifying characteristics, such as conflicts of interest that would make it difficult or impossible for an officer to neutrally exercise the duties of their office. According to an April report from Senate Democrats, Musk and his companies faced upwards of $2.37 billion in legal liability stemming from 65 pending or potential federal investigations, regulations and litigation across 11 agencies relating to his companies — including Tesla, SpaceX and Neuralink. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reported in February that Musk would simply 'excuse himself' if a conflict of interest arose. That cynical strategy failed. In firing tens of thousands of federal employees, including over a dozen inspectors general, Musk managed to muck around with numerous agencies that regulate him — such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is now nearly defunct, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. This is grossly inappropriate self-dealing. A lawsuit filed by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees complained that Musk's DOGE team members were violating a slew of federal laws, including the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Social Security Act, the Tax Revenue Act of 1976 and the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014. The Privacy Act protects citizens' sensitive data unless government access is 'for a necessary and proper purpose' and mandates that 'adequate safeguards' be in place 'to prevent misuses of this information.' Information cannot even be shared between agencies without the consent of the people whose personal data is implicated. In April, a federal judge in Maryland agreed that Trump's unfettered data-collection effort was legally dubious, finding that the pretense that it was necessary to detect 'fraud, waste and abuse' was not enough to overcome the myriad statutory protections for individual Americans' private data. The judge issued an order temporarily enjoining DOGE from harvesting unlimited amounts of information from the Social Security Administration — which may include birth dates, addresses, Social Security numbers, drivers' license numbers, tax return information, bank account information, credit card numbers, employment and wage histories, citizenship and immigration records, and detailed medical records. Trump's executive order requires agencies to give the DOGE teams 'full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems, and IT systems.' The lawsuit is thus a standoff between Trump's roving DOGE snoops and the rule of law itself. In a terse order issued without full briefing or oral argument, Chief Justice Roberts — on behalf of the six conservative justices in the majority — sided with DOGE, reversing the district court's temporary injunction and allowing Musk's minions to access a treasure trove of personal data while the district court's decision is on appeal. Normally, when a district court issues an order, that order holds while it is appealed (absent some finding of exceptional circumstances). In this case, DOGE was positioned to possibly get what it wants down the line, either from the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit or from the Supreme Court in due course, while the case makes its way through the system. In the meantime, the status quo of keeping statutory protections in place for regular Americans would stand — just like it has under every president before Trump. Instead, Roberts found that it is DOGE — not the American people — that would irreparably suffer if the legal questions are given time to percolate on appeal. DOGE gets the goods immediately. If the plaintiffs manage to secure a ruling affirming the district court on appeal many months from now, thus undoing the Supreme Court's stay, the damage will already have been done. The data is already breached. There is no longer a remedy. To justify his decision, Roberts properly cited the four-part test for granting a temporary stay of an injunction: Trump must show that he will likely win under the various federal laws that otherwise protect the data, that he'd be irreparably damaged without a stay, that the stay will not 'substantially injure' other parties (like Americans who want their personal data to remain secure) and that a stay is in the broader public interest. The wrinkle is that Roberts didn't bother to actually analyze any of these factors. He just summarily concluded they were satisfied. Too bad for the plaintiffs — and too bad for the American people, whose personal data is now in the hands of DOGE and anyone else it cares to share it with. Roberts simply reasoned that the DOGE team must get access to the records 'for those members to do their work.' In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that 'the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.' The majority nonetheless is 'jettisoning careful judicial decision-making and creating grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process.' Since the landmark 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court's job has included holding the other branches of government accountable to federal statutes. By baldly eschewing its constitutional role while hiding behind a veneer of legitimacy, today's conservative majority is much like DOGE, the entity it put above the law: a fake. Kimberly Wehle is author of the book 'Pardon Power: How the Pardon System Works — and Why.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store