Latest news with #PrinciplesFirst
Axios
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Illinois Democrats walk tightrope as Durbin delays 2026 decision
Sen. Dick Durbin has yet to announce whether he'll seek another term, but that's not stopping would-be successors from starting their campaigns. Why it matters: The 80-year-old, an U.S. senator from Illinois since 1996, is the second highest ranking Democrat in Washington. Context: Durbin is expected to decide soon whether he'll run for reelection in 2026, but insiders have speculated that he would retire. The intrigue: Illinois Democrats who have their eyes on his seat are walking a tightrope of respecting the elder Democrat while also starting a campaign statewide. Why it matters for them: An endorsement from the influential and widely liked Durbin is at stake. State of play: Several members of Illinois' congressional delegation are rumored to be interested in running to succeed Durbin, including Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi, Robin Kelly, Sean Casten and Lauren Underwood. They have all recently hosted or participated in town hall meetings in Republican parts of the state, including outside their districts, to counter the current president's policies and court would-be voters in parts of the state who may not be familiar with suburban Chicago Democrats. They are also amassing large fundraising war chests, including Krishnamoorthi, who has raised just shy of $20 million. That outpaces almost all the other would-be candidates' fundraising combined. Meanwhile: Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton, who is also in the mix for higher office, took part in a Principles First dinner Tuesday night with former Illinois lawmakers Adam Kinzinger and Dan Lipinski, both moderates. The latest: Last week, Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle implored Durbin and Gov. JB Pritzker (who is also up for reelection next year) to make up their minds while inviting potential candidates to speak to the Cook County Democratic Party. What they're saying: "Needless to say, there would be a lot of ripple effects if either of them decided not to run, but those decisions are their own, and hopefully they'll make them relatively quickly," Preckwinkle said to reporters at the meeting. Reality check: Durbin could end all of the political jockeying if he shocks the political world and decides to run for reelection. He wouldn't be the first senator to continue serving into his 80s.
Forbes
28-03-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Does Someone In The Trump Admin Need To Get Fired Over Signal Group Chat Leak? GOP Strategist Weighs In
GOP strategist and Executive Director of Principles First Brittany Martinez joined "Forbes Newsroom" to discuss the fallout after a journalist was seemingly inadvertently added to a group chat discussing an upcoming U.S. airstrike on the Houthis in Yemen, plus President Trump deciding to pull Congresswoman Elise Stefanik's (R-NY) nomination to serve as U.N. ambassador. Watch the full interview above.
Yahoo
14-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump Brought African-Style Political Thugs to the U.S.
ONE OF THE GREAT HEARTBREAKS of the Trump era for me is seeing my expertise as an Africa analyst become relevant for understanding political trends in America. For example, when I read Jonathan Rauch's essay on Trump's aspiring patrimonialism, a political system in which personalist rule stands in for state institutions, I nodded in recognition of one of the continent's dominant political features. As I was waiting for police to respond to a bomb threat at the Principles First conference last month in Washington, D.C.—the source of which is yet to be determined—I thought of yet another growing parallel: What technically would be called 'informal security forces' but what I, during my time as a CIA Africa analyst, colloquially called 'guys.' When assessing risks to a country's political stability or the endurance of a dictator's power, one of my first questions was always, 'Does he have guys?' They can be anything from a hyper-loyal faction of regular security forces to a specially commissioned 'presidential guard' recruited from a particular ethnic group to a rag-tag gang of young men armed on the cheap and on the down-low. Most recently, they could include hired mercenaries from Russia or other countries. To get the best coverage of Trump 2.0 available anywhere, become a Bulwark+ member. Most successful African political leaders in less-than-democratic systems have guys, from current dictators to wannabe dictators. Any dictator worth his salt will cultivate independent armed factions to counter any threats from the military or other potential challengers' guys. Such groups have the added potential advantage of preserving the reputation of formal security forces in the eyes of the international community. Even popular opposition politicians whose followers are willing to suffer violence—such as Zimbabwe's Morgan Tsvangirai, whose followers were killed with impunity during the 2008 election—have little chance of achieving power without a security force that can at least wage an insurgency against a dictatorial regime. Sudan's former dictator, Omar al-Bashir, created the janjaweed in the early 2000s in an ultimately failed effort to distance his regime from genocide in Darfur (the janjaweed became the Rapid Security Forces, which eventually joined with the military to depose Bashir; now the two forces are waging a brutal civil war against each other). Across the border, South Sudan is awash in militias formed by various aspirants for President Salva Kiir's job. Kiir himself has both formal and informal security forces that bolster his regime. Determining which of his opponents has how many armed men is a key component of assessing Kiir's future. The late dictator of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, had his Presidential Guard but he also had his mob of 'war veterans' who terrorized his opposition in exchange for license to forcibly seize whatever farms they wanted. This collapsed the Zimbabwean economy but effectively shored up Mugabe's regime. He was eventually done in by the regular military, which he mistakenly thought he had on lock. Politicians in Kenya's increasingly democratic political scene have long used ethnic gangs to intimidate and interfere with opponents; former President Daniel arap Moi expertly wielded such groups to help him stay in power through the 1990s as the country transitioned to multiparty democracy. Share A FEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NEW Trump term have me wondering if we're heading into a new era of 'guys' that goes beyond the relentless online attacks on Trump's opponents. We've seen their like in the past in the United States—the urban gangs who helped enforce political machines and the KKK's reign of terror in the South come to mind—but I can't think of an example in which such groups acted on behalf of the president himself. The most obvious blinking red light is Trump's mass pardon of the January 6th insurrectionists, including members of organized militias such as the Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters, and the Thugs Formerly Known as the Proud Boys (a court recently awarded their name to a black church they vandalized). Fresh out of jail, Enrique Tarrio showed up at the Principles First conference last month to menace former police officers Harry Dunn, Michael Fanone, Aquilino Gonell, and Daniel Hodges, who have been outspoken about their experiences fighting the mob on January 6th and who have been the targets of constant harassment ever since. In his remarks at the conference, Fanone bluntly stated the danger of these criminals' pardoning as permission to commit more political violence on Trump's behalf, calling them Trump's 'brownshirts.' I was similarly horrified by reports that Elon Musk's private security force now has federal law enforcement authority via the U.S. Marshals Service. While the marshals sometimes contract with private security companies, Musk's political power, not to mention his egregious conflicts of interest, makes the apparent deputization of his team highly unusual and dangerous. It's unknown how many officers are now de facto federal agents, but that point seems irrelevant. The larger concern is that he has an established entry point, and he certainly has the financial means, to essentially create an alternative security force that might be used to keep Trump—or himself—in power. How seriously will Elon's 'guys' take whatever oath to the Constitution they may have sworn? Trump's and Elon's 'guys' are apparently not limited to just D.C. An Idaho woman was reportedly roughly removed from a town hall meeting by 'unidentified' men who appeared to be private security guards deputized by the local sheriff. Subsequent reporting revealed that the men, who did not show badges or wear uniforms, were employees of a company called LEAR Asset Management. The apparently political use of private security companies threatens civil liberties and democratic activity. Sheriffs and police chiefs are responsible to the voters; private security details are not. The United States' open gun market adds an element that isn't present in Africa. In almost all African nations, owning firearms is illegal or strictly regulated and economically prohibitive for most ordinary people, despite a robust black market. Politicians and other monied people are needed to build armed groups, and they usually retain some control over them, although it's often weak and fleeting. But here in America, it's easy and within the means of almost everyone to obtain a firearm. Even without direct involvement by political leaders or wealthy sponsors, it's quite feasible to form a militia and threaten political violence—especially if they can be pardoned or law enforcement can be coopted, ordered, or influenced to look the other way. In Africa, 'guys' are essential for maintaining patrimonial systems, so of course the 'guys' benefit as well. Being a militia member is one of the lower rungs on the patrimonial employment ladder. In America, we are unlikely to see 'technicals'—pickup trucks jury-rigged to carry machine guns—filled with young men patrolling the streets as they do in places like Somalia or Darfur. We are, for now, still a society of laws and institutions. What we see may be nothing most of the time, but instead, we may sense an invisible force field of menace that is hard to define, easily denied, but increasingly feared. And that may be enough. Unlike many Africans, who sadly have little to lose, most Americans are entrenched in formal economic, political, and social systems. They have jobs, possessions, reputations, and economic and physical security that they would like to keep. I doubt it will take as many 'guys' here to accomplish the authoritarian aims of our new breed of political leaders. Share
Yahoo
01-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump Brings a Day of Historic Shame for the United States
In time, I feel pretty certain we'll learn that this ambush was planned in advance. If you watch the tape of this afternoon's Oval Office meeting, you'll see that Volodymyr Zelenskiy wasn't saying anything confrontational or disrespectful. He was explaining the history of the situation as he saw it. But the fix was in. To review quickly: The confrontation starts with Donald Trump saying, 'I'm aligned with the world … I'm aligned with Europe.' Then JD Vance interjects with a denunciation of Joe Biden and praise of Trump for leading this round of diplomacy. Then Zelenskiy starts to explain how Vladimir Putin invaded his country in 2014, and no one did anything. Then he even said (at 2:10), 'God bless, now, President Trump will stop him.' Then he noted the signed agreements Putin had violated and asked Vance, 'What kind of diplomacy are you talking about?' And that's when Vance delivered his lecture, after which Trump came with his warnings that Zelenskiy was 'gambling with World War III.' We all know where it went from there. Last weekend, I went to the Principles First conference in Washington, a large gathering convened mostly by anti-Trump former Republicans. Garry Kasparov, the Russian dissident, was one of the speakers. He uttered a very simple line that chilled the thousand or so people in the room: 'The United States has changed teams.' If anyone doubted that before this horrifying exchange Friday, it surely can't be doubted now. You had the president of Ukraine who, whatever his flaws, was representing a democracy—a struggling and imperfect democracy, for sure, but one that was invaded by a gangster regime; a country of 38 million people ravaged by a country of 144 million. He came to Washington willing to meet with a president whom he knows to be hostile but ready to sign a totally one-sided deal giving that president control over his country's mineral rights. That he decided not to sit there in silence as lies were being told about him and the nature of Putin's invasion was renamed impertinence. And in that moment, about three minutes and change into the tape linked to above, the United States of America symbolically and visibly switched from being the leader of the free world to being a partner of the global authoritarian axis. I know; our leadership of the free world has been awfully spotty. But at least we declared ourselves to be seeking such a thing. At least it was possible for critics and dissenters to hold the United States to its words and its stated principles. No, that didn't save many lives in Iraq. But in diplomacy, it counts for something. For allies, it means that they can tune to our frequency, seize on some bedrock consistency, and foster engagement. It also means that at least in theory, and sometimes in practice, we promote democracy and liberation around the world—and that where we fail to do that, we can be rightly criticized, corrected, and on occasion, shamed. That's gone. Now, we are in theory and practice on the side of autocracy. Just Friday morning, Zelenskiy met with a bipartisan delegation of senators. That meeting apparently went very well. Senators from both parties praised him. Republican Roger Wicker tweeted about 'the huge step forward' represented by the meeting and the looming deal. Well, that's open to question, but at least it showed that Republican senators were ready to give Zelenskiy some support. Later, after what happened in the White House, Wicker deleted the tweet. And he's been one of the few courageous members of that party. Now he'll hide. But hiding is a lot better than what some of them are doing. Exhibit A, to no one's surprise, is Lindsey Graham. Last week, Graham said to Zelenskiy: 'You're the ally I've been waiting for all my life.' Friday afternoon, he called Zelenskiy 'disrespectful, and I don't know if we can ever do business with Zelenskiy again.' 'Disrespectful.' Note the word. Note its focus on Trump personally; Trump's feelings. This isn't how people talk in democracies. It's how they talk in countries where the moods and whims of the Dear Leader dictate policy. And that, alas, is where we now live. They may yet circle back to a deal—a deal that was one-sided enough that you wouldn't be thought a fool to observe that Ukraine was getting screwed, but at least it was a bridge to something better. Instead, it will be somewhat up to the public opinion of the governed to decide if our nation isn't screwed as well—for now, we're still enough of a democracy that that matters. Whether we can say that a year from now is an interesting question. MAGA America, of course, loves what happened. Normal Earth America is appalled. Then there are those famous people in the middle. The ones who thought Trump would lower egg prices on day one. The ones who thought the businessman would bring order. The ones who have now in many cases personally been caught up in the chaos and disorder in which Trump and his co-president revel, and lost their jobs. We can only hope that, while they probably don't especially care about Ukraine, they find their president's behavior mildly embarrassing. And I wonder what they'll find it six months from now, or a year, or two years, or whenever Putin finds the time to be right, that he'll regroup and try to wipe Ukraine off the map. Because he'll do it if he can. And the president of the United States won't lift a finger. We'll be able to trace it all to this disgraceful moment, this day of historic shame for the United States. We've changed teams.
Yahoo
28-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's Titushky
Once a government becomes a dictatorship, the regime has a full range of repressive instruments at its disposal, including the police, the courts, the military, and domestic intelligence services, among others. All of these institutions act in the name of the state and its leaders, and ordinary citizens resist them at their peril. But aspiring authoritarians, those who are still trying to cow the public and consolidate their power over other movements in society, sometimes rely on volunteers—thugs willing to do violence while denying any link to politicians. Such people are useful in creating a sense of ongoing threat while the actual leaders they support can pretend to deplore their activities. In the 2010s in Ukraine, these men were called Titushky. Named for Vadim Titushko, a Ukrainian who was part of a group convicted for assaulting two journalists in Kyiv, they were supporters of the pro-Russian president at the time, Viktor Yanukovych, and their aim was to intimidate Yanukovych's opponents in Ukrainian society. Analysts at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in 2013 described the Titushky as 'burly guys dressed in sports gear who act as agents provocateurs,' and who 'crack down on protesters or provoke clashes with the aim of tarnishing peaceful protests.' The Titushky were generally lower-class toughs, and many were recruited for pittances. Some of them ended up in prison. Today, the United States has a homegrown version of its own Titushky: the Proud Boys and other far-right groups that have declared their willingness to engage in vigilantism, some of which include people who were pardoned or had their sentences commuted by Donald Trump for participating in the January 6 insurrection. One of these now-freed J6ers, the former leader of the Proud Boys, Enrique Tarrio, showed up last weekend in Washington, D.C., to crash a conference hosted by a group called Principles First, a nonprofit organization that holds annual gatherings of disaffected conservatives who oppose Donald Trump. I have been a speaker and participant at most of these events over the past five years, and I was there to moderate a panel on foreign policy with Bill Kristol and Garry Kasparov. [Read: Who will stop the militias now?] As we returned to the greenroom after the panel, we were told that Tarrio had arrived with some other men and proceeded to confront four well-known figures of January 6: Michael Fanone, Daniel Hodges, Harry Dunn, and Aquilino Gonell, all of whom were police officers during the attack on the Capitol. (Gonell was there to receive an award from Principles First on Saturday afternoon.) Tarrio's people filmed the moment as they harassed the four men, insulting them and yelling at them, clearly trying to draw the foul and see who would lash out first. None of these experienced law-enforcement officers took the bait, and eventually, the interlopers left before things got out of hand—a smart play by Tarrio, who had been arrested the day before and charged with assaulting a female protester in front of the Capitol. (Tarrio says that she made contact first and says he is sure the charges will be dropped.) At Principles First, he didn't cross that line, but his group's attempts to intimidate other Americans was in the same tradition as the goons in tracksuits who were sent to Ukrainian pro-democracy rallies. You may wonder, in a busy city full of conferences, how Tarrio and his associates zeroed in on this one particular gathering. Of course, the meeting was hardly a secret: It was a sold-out event attended by more than 1,200 people. Perhaps it was serendipity. Perhaps someone was keeping tabs on the J6 cops or other prominent attendees and panelists (such as Mark Cuban, among others). Or maybe they were simply following one of the White House–affiliated social-media accounts. Four days before the conference started, Trump's communications director, Steven Cheung, quote-posted an announcement from Principles First, which had pictures of the featured speakers and a link to the schedule, with the comment: 'Aka the Cuck Convention.' (If you are unfamiliar with the online right-wing-troll vocabulary, many on the far right call conservative anti-Trump apostates 'cucks,' referring to men whose fetish is to watch their wives have sex with other men.) Cheung then later reposted his, uh, wry observation, in case anyone needed a reminder that the conference was soon to take place. In other words, a Trump administration official, on his official account, pointed to a gathering of the White House's political opponents and applied a label to it that is beloved to its most fringe supporters. A few days later, a group of people led by Tarrio—a man who owes his freedom from his 22-year prison sentence to President Trump—showed up and harassed other Americans in a public venue. [Read: Trump's pardons are sending a crystal-clear message] When I told my friend, the journalist and Russia expert Michael Weiss, about the incident, he saw the parallel immediately. 'Yanukovych used state-sponsored thugs to intimidate his opponents in Ukraine,' he said. 'Trump is using pardoned putschists to intimidate his in America.' I'm sure everyone involved can claim that it's just a coincidence, and maybe it was. But the Principles First meetings have been taking place since 2020, and the organization's founder, Heath Mayo, told me that they have never had a serious incident at any of their other events. 'We've had peaceful arguments and outbursts in the room,' he said. 'But this targeted harassment in the hallways from people without tickets was a first.' The next day, neither Tarrio nor any of his pals returned, but someone using Tarrio's name emailed a bomb threat that specifically mentioned Fanone—the message included his mother's address—as well as other targets. (Tarrio denied any involvement.) After security and the Secret Service, who, according to Mayo, responded because they had a K9 unit nearby, sounded the all clear, the proceedings continued and the conference ended without violence. During the ceremony for Gonell, Fanone told the crowd that what they had experienced was a small taste of what his life has been like for four years. In the audience, much of what I heard was anger that these January 6 heroes are still being tormented, but, by the evening, the sense I found among most of the speakers and some of the attendees was something more like resignation, a recognition that such moments, with the inherent threat of violence, are now part of daily political life in Trump's America. Article originally published at The Atlantic
