Latest news with #Trump-friendly
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
Trump administration publishes list of ‘sanctuary jurisdictions'
The Brief The DHS released a list of more than 500 "sanctuary jurisdictions" on Thursday. Critics say the list includes mistakes, lacks clarity, and includes Trump-friendly communities. The administration warns jurisdictions could face funding cuts or legal action. LOS ANGELES - The Trump administration released a new list of so-called "sanctuary jurisdictions" this week, publicly identifying more than 500 communities it claims are not complying with federal immigration enforcement efforts. But the list is already drawing criticism for apparent errors, questionable criteria, and including some areas that support the president's policies. The list was published Thursday on the Department of Homeland Security's website in accordance with an executive order signed by President Donald Trump. It marks a significant escalation in the administration's effort to pressure state and local governments that limit cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). View the full list at The backstory According to the department, the list was created using several factors, including whether a jurisdiction self-identifies as a sanctuary, limits information-sharing with ICE, or offers legal protections to undocumented immigrants. DHS said the list will be updated regularly. But critics say the methodology is unclear. Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports stricter immigration enforcement, said the lack of documentation undermines the list's credibility. "That's one thing that I feel is missing from the list — some documentation as to why they're appearing on the list," she said. Nithya Nathan-Pineau, an attorney with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, called the list arbitrary: "It seems quite arbitrary because not all of these states or specific jurisdictions have a policy that limits cooperation with ICE." What's next Each jurisdiction named on the list will receive formal notification from DHS and the Department of Justice. According to the executive order, any community found to remain "in defiance" could face suspended or terminated federal grants and contracts. Federal agencies, along with the Office of Management and Budget, have been tasked with identifying which funding streams may be affected. So far, DHS has not said exactly what legal action may be taken, but noted that enforcement measures are on the table. Among the most confusing aspects of the list: several jurisdictions with no known sanctuary policies were included. Shawano County, Wisconsin, for instance, believes it may have been added by mistake. County administrator Jim Davel said the only policy vote in recent years was to become a "Second Amendment Sanctuary County" opposing gun control laws—unrelated to immigration. Other unexpected names include Alexandria, Virginia, and Huntington Beach, California—both communities with histories of cooperation with ICE. Local perspective There's no legal definition for the term. Generally, it refers to a city, county, or state that limits local cooperation with federal immigration authorities, particularly ICE. The concept has historical roots in the "sanctuary movement" of the 1980s, when religious institutions sheltered Central American refugees fleeing civil wars. Today, many cities adopt these policies to promote public safety, arguing that undocumented residents are more likely to report crimes if they don't fear deportation. César García Hernández, a law professor at Ohio State University, said the practice has evolved but continues to reflect a divide between local and federal priorities. "There was no legal guarantee of immunity," he said, "but there was policy." The Source This story is based on reporting from the Associated Press and public records from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Additional insights were provided by the Center for Immigration Studies, the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, and Ohio State University.
Politico
2 days ago
- Politics
- Politico
Challenging Eric Adams offers a test for New York City comptroller candidates
NEW YORK — The two major candidates for New York City comptroller eagerly take aim at President Donald Trump on the campaign trail — but only one of them has called on the city's Trump-friendly mayor to resign. The race for the fiscal watchdog job has served as the underwhelming undercard to the crowded and chaotic mayor's race. And as they run for the job of being a check on the city's next mayor, the two leading candidates are battling over whether each has done enough to stand up to the current one. 'If you're not willing to stand up to Eric Adams, how the hell can voters expect you to stand up to Donald Trump?' City council member Justin Brannan said. As the City Council's Finance Chair, Brannan finds himself in a natural perch to criticize Adams — unlike his opponent Mark Levine, who as Manhattan Borough President enjoys a largely ceremonial role. The brash, in-your-face Brannan is claiming his quieter, more cerebral opponent isn't a loud enough critic of the mayor. One of his main proof points: Levine never called for Adams to resign. Now Brannan is hoping to make the differing approaches to the city's MAGA-minded mayor an issue in the race. 'He's the only one in the race that took on Adams' (budget) cuts,' a local deli worker says in one of Brannan's ads — which feature loud balloon pops, clown horns, knife sharpening sounds and an angry Brannan yelling 'Hell no!' By contrast, an early May ad from Levine features upbeat music, pie charts and focuses on his ability to communicate in five languages. After the DOJ moved to drop federal corruption charges against Adams, Brannan joined fellow Democrats in calling for Adams to resign. Levine largely stayed mum. But Levine scoffed at the notion he is unwilling to criticize Adams, and said he's deeply concerned about the possibility the mayor is beholden to the federal government following the Department of Justice's intervention in Adams' now-defunct criminal case. 'The truth is he's not going to resign; he's made that clear,' Levine said in a recent interview. 'He's either going to be removed by the courts or the voters. … I've been pretty unsparing in calling out what is an administration riddled with corruption.' Brannan's focus on standing up to the mayor marks a shift from 2021, when he supported Adams in his path to winning the election. Adams fared well in the Coney Island section of Brannan's purple district, and the two shared in common the endorsement of police unions. This year, Brannan has considerations beyond his district: In running for comptroller, he's secured the backing of the anti-police union — and decidedly anti-Adams — Working Families Party. 'The record is clear: when the mayor tried to slash crucial funding to our city's libraries, pre-K, and housing, the Manhattan Borough President was completely silent,' Brannan's spokesperson, Alyssa Cass, said in a statement. Levine's campaign responded with a four-page dossier that described Cass' statement as 'incredibly false' and cited the borough president's 2024 and 2025 city charter-mandated responses to the mayor's budget, which push back on a host of Adams' proposals. 'There have been myriad failings that I would call out as comptroller,' Levine said. 'I talk about them regularly in the campaign, and they impact the priorities I care about.' He mentioned the need to speed up the approval process for affordable housing, expand the 'broken system' for identifying children with learning disabilities and audit the system that public housing tenants use to request apartment repairs. While the two candidates are fighting over who has stood up to Eric Adams, neither is willing to say much about Democratic front-runner Andrew Cuomo, who has a history of structurally weakening the positions of his opponents. While it is politically easy to criticize Adams — whose popularity in the deep-blue city has nosedived — standing up to Cuomo is a tougher task. Unlike Adams, who faced calls for his post-indictment resignation from Democrats around the state, Cuomo has garnered support from power brokers within the party — even many those who had called for his ouster four years ago. He also spent his time as governor removing checks on his power. During his first year as governor, Cuomo greatly limited State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli's powers by stripping him of his power to review certain state contracts before they are signed. His administration reportedly ridiculed him in the process — even referring to DiNapoli as 'chipmunk balls' for his ineffectual use of the post. In 2019, after state lawmakers thwarted Amazon's plans to open a second company headquarters in the city, the former governor greatly diminished the powers of a state board that oversees deals involving state public financing. While Brannan and Levine both said necessary rebukes of the president and mayor are central to the comptroller's role, each demurred when asked about standing up to a would-be Mayor Cuomo. 'I will stand up to any future mayor just as I've stood up to the current one,' Brannan said. 'Judge me by what I've done in my role for the past almost four years, where I've not been silent, I've been fearless,' Brannan added, citing his work to restore short-lived budget cuts to city services put in place by Adams last year. Levine provided a similar reply: 'I'm ready for whoever the next mayor will be, ready to use the considerable powers of the office which are established in the charter that no mayor can overturn … I'm being very careful not to make an endorsement in the mayor's race because I do want to be totally independent from whoever's elected.'
Sydney Morning Herald
3 days ago
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Ley's first shadow ministry is on the mark. But now the hard work starts
Sussan Ley has finally stamped her authority on a much-diminished federal opposition, naming nine new members to her shadow cabinet and rewarding supporters and fellow moderates with roles on her frontbench. Ley had assistance from voters in clearing out some of the familiar faces – Peter Dutton, David Coleman, Michael Sukkar and Perrin Davey lost their seats in parliament – but she has not hesitated to go further. Ley and her team could find no space at the top table for former shadow cabinet members Jane Hume, conservative rising star Claire Chandler, former education spokeswoman Sarah Henderson – who has few allies in the party room – and Nationals turncoat Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who has been demoted to the outer shadow ministry. The appointment of Price to the outer ministry is particularly apposite as the Trump-friendly 'Make Australia Great Again' senator will be bound by shadow ministerial solidarity and unable to freelance outside her defence industry portfolio. Nationals leader David Littleproud has, as expected, ensured that his great rival and predecessor Barnaby Joyce was dumped, while Darren Chester returns to his former gig of veterans' affairs. The newly minted opposition leader had an extra week to consider how to assemble her frontbench team because of the quickie Coalition split. The cracks have been papered over for now but divisions are certain to re-emerge when parliament returns and debate resumes on the giant, unresolved net zero fault line that divides the Coalition. For the most part, Ley has made wise choices. Henderson made a lot of noise but achieved very little in the previous parliament. Hume, fairly or unfairly, is still wearing a decent chunk of the blame for the catastrophic end-work-from-home policy but she, along with Chandler, is likely to return to the frontbench in future. Loading The net result is two fewer women in the 23-member shadow cabinet, though this is offset by the Liberals finally promoting a woman to the leadership.
The Age
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Age
Ley's first shadow ministry is on the mark. But now the hard work starts
Sussan Ley has finally stamped her authority on a much-diminished federal opposition, naming nine new members to her shadow cabinet and rewarding supporters and fellow moderates with roles on her frontbench. Ley had assistance from voters in clearing out some of the familiar faces – Peter Dutton, David Coleman, Michael Sukkar and Perrin Davey lost their seats in parliament – but she has not hesitated to go further. Ley and her team could find no space at the top table for former shadow cabinet members Jane Hume, conservative rising star Claire Chandler, former education spokeswoman Sarah Henderson – who has few allies in the party room – and Nationals turncoat Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who has been demoted to the outer shadow ministry. The appointment of Price to the outer ministry is particularly apposite as the Trump-friendly 'Make Australia Great Again' senator will be bound by shadow ministerial solidarity and unable to freelance outside her defence industry portfolio. Nationals leader David Littleproud has, as expected, ensured that his great rival and predecessor Barnaby Joyce was dumped, while Darren Chester returns to his former gig of veterans' affairs. The newly minted opposition leader had an extra week to consider how to assemble her frontbench team because of the quickie Coalition split. The cracks have been papered over for now but divisions are certain to re-emerge when parliament returns and debate resumes on the giant, unresolved net zero fault line that divides the Coalition. For the most part, Ley has made wise choices. Henderson made a lot of noise but achieved very little in the previous parliament. Hume, fairly or unfairly, is still wearing a decent chunk of the blame for the catastrophic end-work-from-home policy but she, along with Chandler, is likely to return to the frontbench in future. Loading The net result is two fewer women in the 23-member shadow cabinet, though this is offset by the Liberals finally promoting a woman to the leadership.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
As Trump's ratings slide, polling data reveals the scale of Fox News's influence on US politics
Donald Trump's ratings continue to slide on most issues. Recent Economist/YouGov polling across the US, completed on May 9-12, shows 51% think the country is on the wrong track, while only 45% have a favourable impression of his job as president. On inflation and prices in the shops, only 35% approve of his handling of this policy. Trump seems to be scoring particularly badly with young voters. Around 62% of young people (18 to 29s) have an unfavourable opinion of the president, compared with 53% of the over-65s. Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to pursue an agenda to close down, or shackle, much of the media it considers not on his side. Funding for national public service radio NPR and television PBS, as well as the global news service Voice of America, is under threat. Some national news outlets are under investigation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for their coverage. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. In a speech in March, Trump said broadcasters CNN and MSNBC, and some newspapers he didn't name 'literally write 97.6% bad about me'. He added: 'It has to stop. It has to be illegal.' The Trump team clearly see the role of the media as important to establishing and retaining support, and have taken steps to shake up White House coverage – including by changing who can attend the White House press pool. About seven in ten members of the American public say they are following the news for updates on the Trump administration. It is interesting, therefore, to consider the role of the media in influencing Trump's popularity, and insights can be found in the massive US Cooperative Election Study, conducted during the presidential contest last year. That survey showed 57% of Americans had watched TV news in the previous 24 hours. Around 81% had used social media during the same period, but only 20% had used it to comment on politics. There is a lot of attention being paid to fake news on the internet, which is helping to cause polarisation in the US. But when it comes to news about politics, TV coverage is still very important for most Americans. The survey asked respondents about the TV news channels they watched, and Fox News came out on top with 47% of the viewers. ABC came second with 37%, and CBS and CNN tied on 35%. Fox News is Trump's favourite TV station, with its rightwing populist agenda and regular output of Trump-friendly news. Relationship between Trump voters and Fox News's audience in 2024 US presidential election: The Cooperative Election Study had 60,000 respondents, which provides reasonably sized samples in each of the 50 states. The Trump vote varied quite a lot across states, with only 34% of voters in Maryland supporting him, compared with 72% in Wyoming. The electoral college formally decides the results of presidential elections, and this is based on states – so, looking at voting in this way can be quite revealing. The connection between watching Fox News and Trump's vote share can be seen in the chart above. It varies from 21% who watched the channel in Vermont to 60% in West Virginia. Vermont is represented in Congress by Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist from a radical political tradition, and only 32% voted for Trump there. In contrast, West Virginia is part of the rust belt of impoverished states hit by deindustrialisation and the decline of the coal mining industry, and 71% voted for Trump there. We can use a regression model (which looks at the relationship between variables) to predict support for Trump using key measures that drive the vote share for Trump in each state. The model uses three variables to predict the results with 95% accuracy, which means while not perfect, it gives a very accurate prediction of Trump's vote. Not surprisingly, partisanship – that is, the percentage of registered Republicans in each state – is one of the key metrics. In addition, ideology – the percentage of respondents who say they are conservatives – is another. Perhaps more surprisingly, the third important predictor is viewership of Fox News. The relationship between watching the channel and voting for Trump is very strong at the state level. Also, the more time people spend watching the channel, the more likely they are to have voted for Trump. Impact of key factors on Trump voting in 2024 US election: This chart calculates the relationship between watching Fox News and other factors and the strength of a state's support for Trump in 2024. If a variable is a perfect predictor of Trump voting, it would score 1.0 on the scale. If it is a perfect non-predictor, it would score 0. So, the most important predictor of being a Trump voter was the presence of conservatives in a state, followed by the percentage of registered Republicans, and the third was watching Fox News. A high score on all three meant greater support for Trump. To illustrate this, 45% of Texans considered themselves conservatives, 33% were registered Republicans, and 51% watched Fox News. Using these measures, the model predicts that 57% would vote for Trump. In fact, 56% voted for him in that state in 2024. So, while the prediction was not perfect, it was very close. A similar predictive model can be used to forecast former Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris's vote shares by state. In her case, we need four variables to predict the results with 95% accuracy – the percentage of registered Democrats, liberals and moderates in a state, and also Fox News viewership. Not surprisingly in Harris's case, the relationship between Fox News viewing and voting is strongly negative (correlation = -0.64). When viewership was high, the Harris vote was low. Years ago, the 'fairness doctrine' used to mandate US broadcasters to fairly reflect different viewpoints on controversial issues in their coverage. Candidates for public office were entitled to equal air time. But this rule was removed by the FCC in 1987, and has led to an era of some broadcasters becoming far more partisan. The FCC decision followed a period of debate and challenges to the fairness doctrine. This led to its abolition under Ronald Reagan, the Republican president who inspired Project 2025 – the document that in turn appears to be inspiring the Trump government's policy agenda. When the Trump era is over, incumbent Democrats are going to have to repair US institutions that this administration has damaged. If they want to do something about the polarisation of US politics, they may also need to restore the fairness doctrine. Had it not been removed in the first place, it is possible that Harris would have won the 2024 presidential election, since Fox News would not exist in its present form. Whatever happens next, the US media is likely to play an important role. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Paul Whiteley has received funding from the British Academy and the ESRC.
