The Trump era has seen a decline in America’s global reputation

The United States and China are fiercely competing across domains—including in global public opinion. The 2024 presidential election will have a crucial impact on perceptions of U.S. leadership around the world, and the next administration would be well served to consider how global audiences viewed the United States and China during the Trump and Biden administrations.
Under the Trump administration, international approval of U.S. leadership fell to a historic low, with confidence in President Donald Trump roughly on par with confidence in Chinese President Xi Jinping. Trump’s exit from multilateral institutions like the World Health Organization and treaties like the Paris Agreement, restrictive policies on immigration, and aggressive use of tariffs alienated U.S. allies and non-allies alike. Global views of the United States and China worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic by 20 percentage points and 16 percentage points, respectively.
The return of U.S. global engagement under President Joe Biden and his administration’s emphasis on strengthening ties with allies and partners boosted confidence in U.S. leadership. But with the outbreak of the wars in Ukraine and in Israel and Gaza and concerns about U.S.-China competition, global views of U.S. leadership have dimmed, with confidence in the Biden administration sliding from 58% in 2022 to 43% in 2024. China has narrowed the gap in favorability in the Global South and particularly in Southeast Asia. These developments are concerning as the United States’ soft power—that is, its ability to inspire cooperation among partners who admire U.S. values, culture, and vision—has been indispensable for maintaining America’s leading position in the international arena. As such, there is a pressing need for the incoming administration to reaffirm American global leadership and to strengthen the United States’ reputation as a force for peace and stability.
Evolving views of U.S. and Chinese leadership

The Trump administration (2017–2020)
Global views of the United States fell to a low point after Donald Trump took office in 2017. Just a few months into the Trump administration, less than half of the respondents surveyed across 37 countries by the Pew Research Center had a positive view of the United States compared to 64% at the end of the Obama presidency. The 2017 BBC World Services Poll shows the same trend—compared to 2014, the United States saw the most substantial decline in ratings out of all the countries polled, with double-digit increases in negative views among several of its NATO allies, including the United Kingdom, Spain, France, and Turkey. A growing share of people around the world also began to see U.S. power and influence as a “major threat” to their country in 2017 and 2018. Across 34 countries in Asia, Europe, Africa, and Latin America, only 22% of respondents surveyed by Pew in 2017 had confidence in Trump to do the right thing regarding global affairs, in comparison to 28% that had confidence in Xi. Trump’s signature policy proposals, including withdrawing the United States from international climate agreements and trade agreements, plans to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border, and the “Muslim ban” were all overwhelmingly disfavored by those who were surveyed. More than 60% of respondents spanning 37 nations surveyed by Pew in 2017 described Trump as “arrogant,” “intolerant” and even “dangerous.”

In 2017, Germany replaced the United States as the top-rated global power according to Gallup’s 2018 Rating World Leaders report. The median global approval rating of the job performance of U.S. leadership fell from 48% in 2016 to a historic low of 30% in 2017, slightly below that of China. In the Pew’s 2019 Global Attitudes Survey, Trump again received more negative ratings than Xi. Among traditional U.S. allies such as Germany, France, Spain, and the Netherlands, approximately three-quarters or more of respondents to the survey lacked confidence in Trump. Trump’s rating was especially poor in Mexico, where 89% did not have confidence in his ability to do the right thing in international affairs. But Trump enjoyed greater favorability among international audiences on the political right, with right-wing populist party supporters more likely to endorse his key policies. For instance, 67% of French respondents who had a positive view of National Rally supported Trump’s immigration policy, but just 22% of those who disliked National Rally held the same stance. However, out of all of Trump’s major policies listed in the 2019 survey, the increase of tariffs and fees on imported goods received the most backlash from respondents generally.
Positive ratings of China also declined during this period with the intensification of tensions between Washington and Beijing and the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, albeit by a smaller amount. The share of people who evaluate China positively dropped by double-digits in nearly half of the Western European countries surveyed by Pew in 2019 (Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands), though opinions of China in Global South countries remained mostly favorable. In Japan, 85% of respondents said they had an unfavorable opinion of China—the most negative among all countries surveyed, while Russians held the most positive views.

By 2020, most people had unfavorable views of both China and the United States. Confidence in Trump and Xi fell to their lowest points at 17% and 19%, respectively.

The Trump era has seen a decline in America’s global reputation

Many world leaders were quick to offer congratulatory messages to President-elect Joe Biden after his victory in this month’s U.S. presidential election. They included Germany’s Angela Merkel, Canada’s Justin Trudeau and others who have had tense relations with President Donald Trump. Citing Biden’s commitment to rejoining the Paris climate accord, France’s Emmanuel Macron suggested it is now possible to “make our planet great again.”
The French leader’s sentiments are probably shared by many ordinary citizens around the world. In international surveys conducted by Pew Research Center over the past few years, Trump has generally received lower ratings than either of his two predecessors – Barack Obama and George W. Bush – with relatively few people approving of his handling of international affairs.
Indeed, no more than a quarter of adults expressed confidence in Trump in any of the 13 countries surveyed by the Center this year. And in many nations where we have survey data for the past three administrations, the lowest ratings we’ve seen for any president have come during Trump’s time in office. For instance, just 5% of Mexicans voiced confidence in Trump’s leadership in 2017, the smallest share who expressed that view in surveys that date back to 2007.

Trump’s unpopularity has had a significant negative effect on America’s overall image. Ratings for the United States plummeted after he took office in 2017, and they have declined further over the past year, at least in part due to the widespread perception that the U.S. has handled the coronavirus pandemic poorly. In fact, in several nations that are key U.S. allies and partners, the share of the public with a favorable view of the U.S. is at its lowest point in nearly two decades of polling.

For example, just 41% of adults in the United Kingdom expressed a favorable opinion of the U.S. this year, the lowest percentage registered in any Center survey there. In France and Germany, ratings for the U.S. are essentially as low as they were in March 2003, at the height of U.S.-European tensions over the Iraq War. U.S. favorability also reached all-time lows this year in Japan, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands and Sweden.

What have people around the world not liked about Trump? Our 37-nation survey in 2017 found that many did not like his personal characteristics or leadership style. Majorities said he was arrogant, intolerant and dangerous. Few considered him well-qualified or believed that he cares about ordinary people.
There has also been considerable opposition to many of Trump’s policies, including his administration’s withdrawal from climate change agreements and the Iran nuclear deal. Trump’s efforts to make it more difficult to enter the U.S. have also been widely unpopular.
Across 33 nations surveyed in 2019, a median of 55% disapproved of the U.S. allowing fewer immigrants into the country; just 34% approved. A median of six-in-ten opposed building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. And majorities opposed Trump’s efforts to erect trade barriers in addition to physical barriers, with a median of nearly seven-in-ten (68%) disapproving of increased U.S. tariffs or fees on imported goods.

While America’s image has suffered during Trump’s presidency, the U.S. still has many “soft power” assets. For example, people around the world generally still embrace U.S. popular culture: A median of 65% of adults across 37 countries polled in 2017 said they like American music, movies and television.
And people still mostly associate the U.S. with the idea of individual liberty, although there has been a decline on this front in recent years. The share of adults who believe the U.S. government respects the personal freedoms of its people has dropped in many nations recently, including Germany, Canada and Australia. While this decline has continued during Trump’s presidency, it began during the Obama era. (The first decrease on this measure occurred between 2013 and 2014, as news broke about the U.S. National Security Agency’s surveillance around the world. We saw further declines in 2015 following protests in Ferguson, Missouri, in response to the police killing of Michael Brown in August 2014.)
It’s too soon to know the extent to which a new president and new policies can turn around America’s battered image, but a change like this has happened before. After years of relatively poor ratings during the Bush administration, views of the U.S. improved significantly in many regions after Obama took office in 2009. Obama’s policies weren’t uniformly popular over the course of his presidency, but people generally saw his approach to world affairs as more multilateralist than Bush’s, and ratings for the U.S. remained relatively high in most nations throughout his tenure.

 

VP Harris is pushing forward with progressive economic policies  of JOE  BIDEN,

Aug 10, 2024 Democracy Watch with Marc Elias

Democracy Watch episode 167: Marc Elias discusses Republicans suffering a major loss in court in Nevada.

VP Harris is pushing forward with progressive economic policies  JOE  BIDEN, but new the jobs report could cast a shadow over her campaign’s goals. 



Donald Trump said the US election will be “liberation day” for his supporters and “judgement day” for his enemies in a high-octane speech ahead of the South Carolina primary on Saturday night. 

The former president, 77, vowed his second term would mean “revenge” for his opponents as he promised to “fire” Joe Biden, 81.With Mr Trump on course to clinch his party’s nomination within weeks, his rousing, though often rambling, address to the Republican Party faithful was entirely focused on November’s general election.
The roughly 90-minute appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on the outskirts of the US capital was concentrated on crime, immigration, and foreign policy.
Should he return to Washington for a second term, Mr Trump said: “Your victory will be our ultimate vindication, your liberty will be our ultimate reward and the unprecedented success of the United States of America will be my ultimate and absolute revenge”.
“For hard-working Americans, November 5th will be our new liberation day,” he said.
“But for the liars and cheaters and fraudsters and censors and imposters who have commandeered our government, it will be their judgement day.”

He made no reference to his Republican challenger, Nikki Haley, whom he was expected to beat in her home state by as much as 27 points, according to polling aggregator FiveThirtyEight.
The 52-year-old Ms Haley has vowed to stay in the race until at least “Super Tuesday” on March 5, when 15 states vote.
But a humiliating rejection in South Carolina, where she served two terms as governor, may change that calculation.
Speaking ahead of Saturday night’s result, Karoline Leavitt, the Trump campaign’s national press secretary, told The Telegraph the former president was “feeling terrific”.

“We are so excited for President Trump to have another big victory tonight,” Ms Leavitt said.
“We feel really confident that our winning message and our unmatched ground game and the overwhelming support that he has from local and national Republican representatives from the state will propel us to victory.”
While at CPAC, Mr Trump also lashed out at Prince Harry, warning he would not “protect” him if he wins a second term, amid a legal challenge relating to the Duke’s visa application.
“I wouldn’t protect him. He betrayed the Queen. That’s unforgivable. He would be on his own if it was down to me,” Mr Trump told the Daily Express.
It comes as the US government has fought to block the public disclosure of the Duke’s visa application after his admission of drug use triggered a court challenge by the Heritage Foundation.

Trump can be jailed in 2024: Appeals court deals nightmare blow in Jack Smith case

Meanwhile, Mr Trump has invested in courting the African American voters who were credited with powering Mr Biden’s 2020 bid.

The Republican frontrunner’s campaign believes he is gaining strength among black voters, although polls show an overwhelming majority still favour Mr Biden.
Addressing a gathering of black conservatives in South Carolina on the eve of its GOP primary, Mr Trump said black people are “on my side now” because they see him as a victim of discrimination.
At the black-tie event in Columbia, Mr Trump told the crowd: “You understand that. I think that’s why the black people are so much on my side now because they see what’s happening to me happens to them.”
The freewheeling address mixed Mr Trump’s stump speech staples with direct appeals to black voters.
His jokes touching on race were seized on by the Biden campaign, but did attract some laughter from the audience.
“The lights are so bright in my eyes I can’t see too many people out there,” Mr Trump said. “I can only see the black ones. I can’t see any white ones. That’s how far I’ve come,” he added.
Mr Biden’s team hit back at the “moronic” and “racist” comments from the former president.
Cedric Richmond, the co-chairman of the Biden-Harris campaign, said: “Though I may be disgusted, I am not at all surprised that Donald Trump would equate the suffering and injustice of Black people in America to consequences he now faces because of his own actions. 
“Donald Trump claiming that Black Americans will support him because of his criminal charges is insulting. It’s moronic. And it’s just plain racist. 
“He thinks Black voters are so uninformed that we won’t see through his shameless pandering. He has another thing coming. Trust me when I say, in November the very voting block that he continues to disrespect will make him eat these words.”

 

THE DANGER OF A DERANGED TRUMP on the nuclear button

President Trump and Kim Jong-un, the leader of North Korea, traded threats this week about the size, location and potency of their “nuclear buttons.”

The image of a leader with a finger on a button — a trigger capable of launching a world-ending strike — has for decades symbolized the speed with which a nuclear weapon could be launched, and the unchecked power of the person doing the pushing.

A military aide traveling with President Trump in December carried the so-called nuclear football as he walked toward Marine One, the president’s helicopter.Credit...Mark Wilson/Getty Images
What’s the deal with the button?
William Safire, the former New York Times columnist and presidential speechwriter, tracked the origin of the phrase “finger on the button” to panic buttons found in World War II-era bombers. A pilot could ring a bell to signal that other crew members should jump from the plane because it had been damaged extensively. But the buttons were often triggered prematurely or unnecessarily by jittery pilots.
The expression is commonly used to mean “ready to launch an atomic war,” but the writer added in “Safire’s Political Dictionary” that it is also a “scare phrase used in attacking candidates” during presidential elections.
President Lyndon B. Johnson told Barry M. Goldwater, his Republican opponent in 1964, that a leader must “do anything that is honorable to avoid pulling that trigger, mashing that button that will blow up the world.”
Richard M. Nixon told advisers during the Vietnam War that he wanted the North Vietnamese to believe he was an unpredictable “madman” who could not be restrained “when he’s angry, and he has his hand on the nuclear button.”
During the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton said of her opponent, “Trump shouldn’t have his finger on the button, or his hands on our economy.”


Trump Threatens North Korea With ‘Fire and Fury’

“North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States,” President Trump said after the isolated nuclear-armed country criticized the United States earlier in the day.CreditCredit...Al Drago for The New York Times
How would President Trump launch an attack?
Each nuclear-capable country has its own system for launching a strike, but most rely on the head of government first confirming his or her identity and then authorizing an attack.






Despite Mr. Trump’s tweet that he has a “much bigger & more powerful” button than Mr. Kim, the fact is, there is no button.
There is, however, a football. Except the football is actually a briefcase.
The 45-pound briefcase, known as the nuclear football, accompanies the president wherever he goes. It is carried at all times by one of five military aides, representing each branch of the United States armed forces.
Inside the case is an instructional guide to carrying out a strike, including a list of locations that can be targeted by the more than 1,000 nuclear weapons that make up the American arsenal. The case also includes a radio transceiver and code authenticators.
To authorize the attack, the president must first verify his identity by providing a code he is supposed to carry on him at all times. The code, often described as a card, is nicknamed “the biscuit.”

In his 2010 autobiography, Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the final years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, wrote that Mr. Clinton had lost the biscuit for several months without informing anyone.
“That’s a big deal,” General Shelton wrote, “a gargantuan deal.”
The president does not need approval from anyone else, including Congress or the military, to authorize a strike — a decision that might have to be made at a moment’s notice.
Nevertheless, some politicians have called for more layers of approval.
“The longer I’m in the Senate, the more I fear for a major error that somebody makes,” Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said in 2016. “One man, the president, is responsible. He makes an error and, who knows, it’s Armageddon.”
Image

North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency released this photograph in October showing Kim Jong-un observing a recent missile test.Credit...Korean Central News Agency
How would Kim Jong-un order a strike?
Much of North Korea’s nuclear program is shrouded in mystery.
Mr. Kim, however, is the undisputed ruler of his isolated country. Any decision to initiate an attack would most likely be his alone. In recent months, Mr. Kim has threatened to ignite an “enveloping fire” of missiles near the Pacific island of Guam, an American territory, and has warned that North Korean intercontinental ballistic missiles are capable of reaching the mainland United States.

\



“It’s not a mere threat but a reality that I have a nuclear button on the desk in my office,” Mr. Kim said in a speech on Monday. “All of the mainland United States is within the range of our nuclear strike.”
It is doubtful that there really is a button on his desk. Furthermore, an intercontinental attack from the North probably could not happen in minutes, let alone seconds.
The North’s longest-range missiles are believed to be powered by liquid rocket fuel. That means the missiles cannot be stored and ready-to-fire at a moment’s notice. They must be loaded with fuel before launch, a process than can take hours.
Newer, shorter-range missiles, are loaded with solid fuel, however, making them easier to launch before the North’s enemies detect an attack.

Milley acted to prevent Trump from misusing nuclear weapons, war with China, book says
The book also revealed a previously unreported call between then-Vice President Mike Pence and former Vice President Dan Quayle.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley took steps to prevent then-President Donald Trump from misusing the country's nuclear arsenal during the last month of his presidency, according to a new book by The Washington Post's Bob Woodward and Robert Costa obtained by NBC News.

Their book, "Peril," said that in the days before the 2020 election, Milley also acted to prevent a potential conflict with China. The book said Milley received intelligence that Chinese officials believed the U.S. was getting ready to attack them. To defuse tensions, Milley called the head of China's military, Gen. Li Zuocheng, and told him the "American government is stable" and "we are not going to attack."

"If we're going to attack, I'm going to call you ahead of time. It's not going to be a surprise," Milley is quoted as saying.

"We're not going to have a fight," Milley told him, according to the book.
Li replied, "Okay."
"I take you at your word," Li said.
Trump laced into Milley in a statement, calling the general a "dumb---" and the details of the story "Fake News."
"For the record, I never even thought of attacking China — and China knows that. The people that fabricated the story are sick and demented, and the people who print it are just as bad," he said in the statement.
The book, set to be released Sept. 21, also recounted a phone conversation Milley had with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi after the Jan. 6 violence at the Capitol, which Pelosi blamed on an "unhinged" Trump. Pelosi said in January that she spoke to Milley about "preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike."
"I can guarantee you, you can take it to the bank, that there'll be, that the nuclear triggers are secure and we're not going to do — we're not going to allow anything crazy, illegal, immoral or unethical to happen," Milley told her, according to a transcript of the call obtained by the authors.
"The president alone can order the use of nuclear weapons. But he doesn't make the decision alone. One person can order it, several people have to launch it," he said later in the conversation.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Milley sought to avert conflict with China over Trump fears, new book reports
02:00
After the call, Milley summoned senior officers from the National Military Command Center to go over the procedures for launching nuclear weapons, the book said. He told the officers that if they got a call, "you do the procedure. You do the process. And I'm part of that procedure," he said — making sure he was in the loop on any planned military actions, the book said.
Those scenarios didn't come to fruition.
The book also revealed a previously unreported call between then-Vice President Mike Pence and former Vice President Dan Quayle in late December. Pence was seeking advice about Trump's demand that he refuse to recognize the election results during the electoral vote count on Jan. 6.

Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaks during a news conference at the Pentagon in Arlington, Va., on Sept. 1.Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg via Getty Images
Quayle thought Trump's suggestion was "preposterous and dangerous," according to the book. He told Pence: "You have no flexibility on this. None. Zero. Forget it. Put it away."
Pence told him, "I've been trying to tell Trump," but "there are other guys there saying I have this power."

 

The Supreme Court just gave presidents  superpowers and rules ex-presidents have broad immunity, dimming chance of a pre-election Trump trial

The Supreme Court opinion in former President Donald Trump's immunity case is photographed Monday, July 1, 2024. In a historic ruling the justices said for the first time former presidents can be shielded from prosecution for at least some of what they do in the The Supreme Court on Monday ruled for the first time that former presidents have some immunity from prosecution, extending the delay in the Washington criminal case against Donald Trump on charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss and all but ending prospects the former president could be tried before the November election.

In a historic 6-3 ruling, the court's conservative majority, including the three justices appointed by Trump. returned his case to the trial court to determine what is left of special counsel Jack Smith's indictment The outcome means additional delay before Trump could face trial.
The court's decision in a second major Trump case this term, along with its ruling rejecting efforts to bar him from the ballot because of his actions following the 2020 election, underscores the direct and possibly uncomfortable role the justices are playing in the November election.
"Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. "And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts."
The three liberal justices dissented.
In a scathing dissent she read from in the courtroom, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, "Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent." Sotomayor said the decision "makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law."
The protection afforded presidents by the court, she said, "is just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless."
Trump posted in all capital letters on his social media network shortly after the decision was released: "BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!"

The Supreme Court’s ruling in 

Trump v. the United States has unmoored presidential policymaking, including in foreign affairs, from the rule of law. The impact of this epic judgment will likely reverberate for years in the nation’s domestic and foreign policies.
What did the Supreme Court decide in Trump v. United States?

The case before the Supreme Court centered on the August 2023 indictment [PDF] charging former President Donald Trump with violating numerous federal criminal statutes when he sought to overturn the results of the last presidential election prior to leaving office on January 20, 2021. Part of the indictment covers Trump’s alleged role in the January 6 insurrection on Capitol Hill that year.

Trump’s appeal to the Supreme Court revolved around distinguishing official from unofficial acts of a president and the scope of a president’s immunity from criminal prosecution after leaving office. The majority ruled that a president has absolute immunity from criminal liability for conduct “within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” They further found that the president enjoys “presumptive immunity” for “acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility…unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’” Not surprisingly, the court found that a president enjoys no immunity under federal criminal law to commit unofficial acts.
As to the specific allegations against Trump in the government’s case, the court ruled that his alleged efforts to pressure the Justice Department to conduct sham investigations into election fraud were actions taken within his exclusive constitutional powers and therefore absolutely immune from prosecution.
The majority found that his attempt to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to take certain acts in connection with the electoral vote certification process involved official conduct, and were at least presumptively immune from prosecution. The court reasoned similarly regarding Trump’s controversial tweets and public address in the lead up to the violent march on Capitol Hill. The majority left it to the lower courts to determine whether Trump should receive immunity for these acts.
What does the ruling mean for U.S. democracy and the electoral process?
The immediate consequence of the ruling—and of the monthslong delay in delivering it—is that the Supreme Court has deprived Americans voting in the November 2024 presidential election a jury trial to determine whether one of that race’s candidates violated federal criminal law in connection with the 2020 election.
If Trump becomes the next president, he could shut down the entire prosecution against him by using his executive authority (regardless of the immunity judgment). If he loses the election in November, his trial will likely plod through the federal judiciary with appeals over what constitutes an official or unofficial act and whether presumptive immunity survives.
Remarkably, the court’s ruling would permit a future president to ask an executive branch official to violate a federal criminal statute in connection with elections [PDF], and it would grant that president at least presumptive immunity for those actions. A president could thus be emboldened, for example, to weaponize the Justice Department in an attempt to overturn state vote tallies and facilitate fraudulent elector rolls for the Electoral College.
However, the court did not extend any immunity to the vice president or other executive branch officials, so they would remain subject to federal criminal prosecution, even if they were to break the law at a president’s behest. Without a presidential pardon, these officials could be indicted after the president leaves office. For any federal lawyers involved in criminal conduct, state bar associations could disbar them.
What impact could the ruling have on the president’s powers in foreign policy and national security?
The court has deeply undermined the United States’s credibility in promoting the rule of law overseas, and it may have opened the door for U.S. presidents to commit criminal acts in foreign policy or national security without legal consequence. Under the Constitution, as the court’s ruling confirmed, presidents are granted various powers in the realm of foreign relations, including commanding the armed forces, making treaties, recognizing foreign governments, and overseeing intelligence gathering.
The court’s ruling gives wide room for presidents to commit abuses previously checked by assumed restraints, particularly under federal criminal law. These abuses include:ordering the military to invade a foreign country and commit genocide against a minority religious group;
ordering the military to commit major war crimes and torture against a civilian population in an enemy nation during an armed conflict;
instructing federal officials to falsify documents required for the sale of U.S. weapons and munitions to a foreign purchaser under the Arms Export Control Act;
sharing highly classified national security information (and making no attempt to declassify it) with a foreign leader; and
ordering the U.S. Border Patrol to massacre hundreds of sleeping migrants camped on the U.S.-Mexico border.

While in office, a president who had engaged in any of the above acts could still, of course, be impeached by Congress for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Military personnel and other executive branch officials who comply with or aid the president in these actions would risk prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or the federal criminal code. As noted earlier, they could also seek presidential pardons for their illegal conduct. But military discipline guided by the rule of law would be dangerously disrupted.
Will the ruling have any implications for the U.S. in international legal forums?
The ruling has no practical effect for International Court of Justice (ICJ) cases in which the United States would be a party. The ICJ adjudicates only state responsibility, and thus a president’s immunity under U.S. law would not affect ICJ deliberations.
If a U.S. president (sitting or former) were to be investigated by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whether or not the United States is party to the Rome Statute [PDF] that established the ICC, it would not recognize the immunity granted to them by the Supreme Court. Article 27 of the Rome Statute explicitly denies the protection of immunities granted to any official.
The ICC affords any nation the initial opportunity to investigate and decide whether to prosecute individuals accused of any of the offenses named by the Rome Statute (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, aggression) and in the result avoid ICC action. However, if a sitting or ex-president were to invoke immunity to block a domestic inquiry, it would ironically expose them directly to an ICC investigation.

Smith's office declined to comment on the ruling.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer denounced the ruling as "a disgraceful decision," made with the help of the three justices that Trump appointed himself.
"It undermines SCOTUS's credibility and suggests political influence trumps all in our courts today," the New York Democrat said on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.
The justices knocked out one aspect of the indictment. The opinion found Trump is "absolutely immune" from prosecution for alleged conduct involving discussions with the Justice Department.
Trump is also "at least presumptively immune" from allegations that he tried to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject certification of Democrat Joe Biden's electoral vote win on Jan. 6, 2021. Prosecutors can try to make the case that Trump's pressure on Pence still can be part of the case against him, Roberts wrote.
The court directed a fact-finding analysis on one of the more striking allegations in the indictment -- that Trump participated in a scheme to enlist fake electors in battleground states won by Biden who would falsely assert that Trump had won. Both sides had dramatically different interpretations as to whether that effort could be construed as official, and the conservative justices said determining which side is correct would require additional analysis at the trial court level.
That work will fall to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who would preside over Trump's trial.
Trump still could face a trial, said Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller. "But the fact remains that it is almost impossible to happen before the election."
David Becker, an election law expert and the executive director of the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research, called the breadth of immunity granted to Trump "incredibly broad" and "deeply disturbing."
"Almost anything that a president does with the executive branch is characterized as an official act," he said on a call with reporters following the ruling. "I think putting aside this particular prosecution, for any unscrupulous individual holding the seat of the Oval Office who might lose an election, the way I read this opinion is it could be a roadmap for them seeking to stay in power."
Becker also lamented the time the Supreme Court took with the ruling, saying Americans had an interest in knowing the result sooner given Trump's candidacy in the upcoming presidential election.
The ruling was the last of the term, and it came more than two months after the court heard arguments, far slower than in other epic high court cases involving the presidency, including the Watergate tapes case.
The Republican former president has denied doing anything wrong and has said this prosecution and three others are politically motivated to try to keep him from returning to the White House.
In May, Trump became the first former president to be convicted of a felony, in a New York court. He was found guilty of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment made during the 2016 presidential election to a porn actor who says she had sex with him, which he denies. He still faces three other indictments.
Smith is leading the two federal probes of the former president, both of which have led to criminal charges. The Washington case focuses on Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election after he lost to Biden. The case in Florida revolves around the mishandling of classified documents. A separate case, in Georgia, also turns on Trump's actions after his defeat in 2020.
If Trump's Washington trial does not take place before the 2024 election and he is not given another four years in the White House, he presumably would stand trial soon thereafter.
But if he wins, he could appoint an attorney general who would seek the dismissal of this case and the other federal prosecution he faces. He could also attempt to pardon himself if he reclaims the White House. He could not pardon himself for the conviction in state court in New York.

The Supreme Court that heard the case included three justices appointed by Trump — Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — and two justices who opted not to step aside after questions were raised about their impartiality.
Justice Clarence Thomas' wife, Ginni, attended the rally near the White House where Trump spoke on Jan. 6, 2021, though she did not go the Capitol when a mob of Trump supporters attacked it soon after. Following the 2020 election, she called the outcome a "heist" and exchanged messages with then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, urging him to stand firm with Trump as he falsely claimed that there was widespread election fraud.
Justice Samuel Alito said there was no reason for him to step aside from the cases following reports by The New York Times that said flags similar to those carried by the Jan. 6 rioters flew above his homes in Virginia and on the New Jersey shore. His wife, Martha-Ann Alito, was responsible for flying both the inverted American flag in January 2021 and the "Appeal to Heaven" banner in the summer of 2023, he said in letters to Democratic lawmakers responding to their recusal demands.
Trump's trial had been scheduled to begin March 4, but that was before he sought court-sanctioned delays and a full review of the issue by the nation's highest court.
Before the Supreme Court got involved, a trial judge and a three-judge appellate panel had ruled unanimously that Trump can be prosecuted for actions undertaken while in the White House and in the run-up to Jan. 6.
"For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant," the appeals court wrote in February. "But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution."
Chutkan ruled against Trump's immunity claim in December. In her ruling, Chutkan said the office of the president "does not confer a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass."
"Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability," Chutkan wrote. "Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office."


CNN —
With its immunity ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court granted former President Donald Trump’s wish of all but guaranteeing that his criminal trial for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election will not go to trial before the 2024 election in November.
It also granted presidents in general a definitive “absolute immunity” from prosecution for core official acts and said presidents should be presumed immune for a much more expansive list of acts.



Related article


In the view of the majority comprised of the six conservative justices on the court, the decision does not place presidents in general, and Trump in particular, above the law. But the three liberals dissented with a warning about how elevating a president will affect American democracy.
The decision has the near-term result of delaying Trump’s trial while a court in Washington, DC, considers which criminal activity that Trump is accused of can be considered “unofficial.” It also has the long-term effect of placing presidents in a different system of justice than other Americans.
Here are key lines from a landmark ruling:
What is this new immunity?
Chief Justice John Roberts explains it in the majority opinion as including absolute immunity for some actions and a presumption of immunity for others.

We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient.
Why does a president need this immunity?
So that he can act boldly as president and take actions without fear of later prosecution clouding his judgement, according to the court. Here’s Roberts:
Potential criminal liability, and the peculiar public opprobrium that attaches to criminal proceedings, are plainly more likely to distort Presidential decisionmaking than the potential payment of civil damages.
The hesitation to execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly that might result when a President is making decisions under “a pall of potential prosecution,” … raises “unique risks to the effective functioning of government.”
What does it say in the Constitution about presidents getting special immunity?
Nothing. But that’s no problem, according to Roberts.
True, there is no “Presidential immunity clause” in the Constitution. But there is no “‘separation of powers clause’” either. … Yet that doctrine is undoubtedly carved into the Constitution’s text by its three articles separating powers and vesting the Executive power solely in the President.
How far does this immunity extend?
A president gets “at least a presumptive immunity” even for acts “within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility,” according to the court. But it’s careful to add that he gets no immunity for “unofficial acts” – and despite the broad reach of the immunity, the court argues presidents are still accountable.
The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.
Are any of the things Trump is accused of in special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment outside this blanket of immunity?
During oral arguments in the case back in April, Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, told Justice Amy Coney Barrett that multiple elements of the indictment would indeed be “private,” or unofficial, acts. These include, for instance, getting an outside attorney to organize slates of false electors.
Barrett, in a concurring opinion on Monday, said she would make clear in the decision what was official versus unofficial. But the majority takes no position and wants the trial court to go through the allegations individually. Trump can then appeal whatever the trial court decides. Here’s Roberts:
… the current stage of the proceedings in this case does not require us to decide whether this immunity is presumptive or absolute. … Because we need not decide that question today, we do not decide it.
Does the majority tell the trial court what might be official or not?
The majority gives quite a bit of detail.
Trump has “absolute immunity” for any instructions or pressure he exerted on his acting attorney general, for instance. Plus, the court won’t allow as evidence any interviews with people who worked in the administration (nullifying much of the evidence gathered by the House select committee that investigated the January 6, 2021, events). And it also won’t let a court consider a president’s motives for taking an action.
Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II interests that immunity seeks to protect.
It’s an open question for the lower court to decide if Trump’s pressure on then-Vice President Mike Pence to disregard the 2020 election results involved “official conduct,” but the Supreme Court put that pressure in the “presumptively immune” category.
We accordingly remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance—with the benefit of briefing we lack—whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial.
The majority thinks Trump’s tweets encouraging people to go to the Capitol and pressure Pence are within the “outer perimeter of his official responsibilities,” but they’re not sure and they expect it will be challenging for the lower court to muddle through these questions.
Why can’t a jury make these decisions?
Juries can’t even consider official acts in terms of a prosecution, according to the Supreme Court.
Allowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.
So the Supreme Court gave Trump everything he wanted?
It certainly embraced Trump’s theory of immunity and pretty much guaranteed the trial will not happen before the election, although the majority says they were restrained since they rejected his request to completely dismiss the case.
Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized. He contends that the indictment must be dismissed because the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution.
So there is a special system of justice for presidents?
The president is more than a person, according to Roberts.
Like everyone else, the President is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity. But unlike anyone else, the President is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties. Accounting for that reality—and ensuring that the President may exercise those powers forcefully, as the Framers anticipated he would—does not place him above the law; it preserves the basic structure of the Constitution from which that law derives.
The majority dismisses warnings about a president operating above the laws as “fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals.” It’s more important to protect the president from political prosecutions, the court says.
The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. … The enfeebling of the Presidency and our Government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the Framers intended to avoid.
Roberts borrows from Trump’s attorneys when he quotes George Washington’s farewell address, in which he warns about factions. The problem with that particular quote, as I found earlier this year, is that Washington also warned about elevating a person above the law.
Does the court mention the politics of today?
Roberts says the court’s considerations are more far-reaching than what’s happening at the moment.
This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? Our Nation has never before needed an answer. But in addressing that question today, unlike the political branches and the public at large, we cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. In a case like this one, focusing on “transient results” may have profound consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of our Republic.
Did it say anything about Smith?
The majority did not weigh in on the brewing argument among conservatives that Smith should not even have a job and that his role as a special counsel is unconstitutional. But Justice Clarence Thomas endorsed the idea in a concurring opinion.
In this case, there has been much discussion about ensuring that a President “is not above the law.” But, as the Court explains, the President’s immunity from prosecution for his official acts is the law. … In that same vein, the Constitution also secures liberty by separating the powers to create and fill offices. And, there are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law.
What did Barrett say about alternate electors?
Barrett, a Trump appointee, wrote her own concurrence in which she disagreed with the majority on some key points. She said they could easily have expressed that some of Trump’s conduct was unofficial.

Sorting private from official conduct sometimes will be difficult—but not always. Take the President’s alleged attempt to organize alternative slates of electors. … In my view, that conduct is private and therefore not entitled to protection. … a President has no legal authority—and thus no official capacity—to influence how the States appoint their electors. I see no plausible argument for barring prosecution of that alleged conduct.
What was in the blistering dissent?
Writing for the three liberals on the court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted the majority as inventing an “atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law.” She said the court makes it difficult to imagine what might be “unofficial” conduct on the part of the president.
In sum, the majority today endorses an expansive vision of Presidential immunity that was never recognized by the Founders, any sitting President, the Executive Branch, or even President Trump’s lawyers, until now. Settled understandings of the Constitution are of little use to the majority in this case, and so it ignores them. … In fact, the majority’s dividing line between “official” and “unofficial” conduct narrows the conduct considered “unofficial” almost to a nullity.
The majority “pays lip service” to the idea that presidents are not above the law “but it then proceeds to place former Presidents beyond the reach of the federal criminal laws for any abuse of official power.”

 

THE TRUMP CRIME FAMILY

If Republicans are truly worried about members of the first family improperly benefitting from their name, Mehdi says there are two people besides Hunter Biden that they should be looking at: Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.
With each passing day away from Washington, former President Donald Trump’s grievances continue unabated. And those complaints appear to be driving away two of the people who were closest to him during his White House tenure: his daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
Sometimes the former President complains for several hours about the “stolen” 2020 election. Other times, his frustrations emerge in fits and starts – more likely when he is discussing his hopeful return to national politics. And while he often has a rotating audience of cheering listeners, the gap between Trump and his daughter and son-in-law grows wider by the week, according to 12 former Trump White House officials, former administration officials, family friends, acquaintances and members of Trump’s team who spoke with CNN about changes to the former President’s current inner circle.
A large part of the reason for the separation is Trump’s constant harping on the past and his inability to move on. The former President has also started to question the role that Kushner – one of the few people who were able to stay close to Trump throughout his two presidential campaigns and White House tenure – has played in his presidential legacy.

Ivanka Trump has also struggled to undo the entanglements caused by the years at her father’s side in the White House, as she seeks a less complicated life for her family, according to two acquaintances. They described her as having to walk a fine line between embracing her father and distancing herself from his election lies.
Having spent much of the last five-and-a-half years in close proximity to him, Ivanka Trump and Kushner were rarely seen with him in the months leading up to the former President’s seasonal shift from living at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, to living in a cottage at his private golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey.
“They weren’t around for the usual spring and summer events at Mar-a-Lago,” says one clubgoer and family friend, noting the absence of Trump’s elder daughter and the couple’s three young children.
Simultaneously, the disappearance of Kushner – once the ringleader of Trump’s policy operations – was also apparent. A person familiar with Kushner says there were visits from the Kushner/Trump family to Mar-a-Lago before Trump’s move North, but they were sparse, averaging once every three to four weeks. The physical distance between them was not far: after leaving Washington, Kushner and Ivanka Trump moved to a Miami high-rise to await the construction of their mansion on a nearby private island.
Kushner’s presence, physically and virtually, has become increasingly rare as it became clear that his father-in-law remained preoccupied with the 2020 election, according to one person familiar with the situation.
“He was kind of like a parent who sticks around less and less each morning while they’re transitioning their kid to day care,” this person said.
Kushner moves to the side
It wasn’t the distance that kept Kushner away, say those who know his thinking – it was the desire to be far from Trump’s constant stream of contempt, and the chorus of voices cheering him on.
“Trump always has an array of characters around him,” says a person who worked in the administration.
Around mid-March, some of Trump’s most trusted advisers began urging him to bring someone onto his team who could oversee daily operations and help organize his candidate meetings, fundraising requests and endorsement vetting process.
“I don’t think it’s accurate to say he needed a new Jared, because Jared was always more of a policy guy inside the White House, but there was definitely a sense that some part of the puzzle was missing and it was contributing to a lot of internal confusion and chaos,” said a former White House official.
Eventually, Trump brought on Susie Wiles, a Florida-based consultant who had earned his trust and was a familiar face to others on his payroll. But the frequency of Wiles’ appearances, as well as her overall involvement, has also decreased since Trump relocated to Bedminster for the summer, according to one of the people involved with his operation.
Another consistent presence is that of Donald Trump Jr, whose penchant for politics has grown in the years since his father entered the political scene and who has become an increasingly trusted adviser to the former real estate mogul.
Kushner is not helping Trump cook up plans for a rally later this month, nor is he intensely involved with the former President’s endorsement decisions or frequent public statements, which, sans a social media presence, come via news releases from Trump’s leadership PAC, Save America – again, something Kushner has veered away from.
Without input from his elder daughter and her husband, Trump is isolated from their influence, though the person close to Kushner does note he “still speaks on the phone” to the former President.
Now Trump finds himself more often in the company of an ever-changing circle of advisers. Trump allies say he is once again interacting with characters who should require supervision – noting that he has been in frequent touch with One America News anchor Christina Bobb, a prolific proponent of far-fetched theories about the 2020 election, in addition to MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, who has encouraged Trump to keep challenging the 2020 election results in several states.
A member of Trump’s team tells CNN the former President has “always had siloed relationships” with various people and that even in the White House – with Kushner ostensibly down the hall – Trump could frequently be “running his own play.” This person notes Trump’s cadre of recent influencers is akin to his unconventional way of eliciting opinion.

“There are other circles around him, yes,” says this person, who doesn’t argue there are questionable characters in the ear of the former President, “but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t also have very reasonable and buttoned-up people there as well.”
The person close to Kushner adds that the group off whom Trump bounces his most off-the-wall and questionable theories is, while conspiratorial in nature, not completely out of the realm of a host of “regulars” with whom he has held court over the years.
“The stakes [now] are also less than they were when he was in the White House,” says the source.
Eroded trust
Trump has privately started to question Kushner’s contributions to his legacy. One person who spoke with the former President in the last two weeks recounted a conversation in which Trump complained about Kushner inking a book deal that he thinks his son-in-law will use to take credit for some of his achievements.
Another source confirms there is jealousy from Trump about Kushner’s book, which a Kushner associate says was a “seven-figure deal” with Broadside Books, the conservative branch of mega-publisher HarperCollins. Trump, who has lately been helping with several journalists’ in-the-works books about his presidency, has yet to announce a deal of his own.
“He’s always been suspicious of Jared,” this person said, noting that Trump has previously discounted Kushner’s role in some of the key policies he enacted as president, including Middle East peace deals and criminal justice revisions.
Two people familiar with conversations Trump has had since his arrival in May at Bedminster say he questioned whether Kushner “accomplish[ed] peace in the Middle East after all” after tensions between Israel and Hamas erupted into a violent series of airstrikes last month.
“It is not a secret President Trump doesn’t like when he thinks other people are getting attention for something he feels he has facilitated,” says another former Trump White House official. “There’s a sweet spot between saying nothing about work you did and saying too much that everyone has to find – or else he gets triggered.”
A person who works with Trump now disputes that the former President has been vocal about disloyalty to Kushner, noting that several of the authors who have interviewed the former President for their books have asked directly whether Trump blames Kushner for his election loss.
“Every time, he’s answered definitively, ‘no,’ on the record,” says the person.
Those close to Kushner laugh off the idea of an estrangement, saying Trump is provocative at times because that is who he is. They note Kushner is long used to the occasional Trump backlash, and it doesn’t bother him.
“He knows Trump acknowledges his successes,” says the person close to Kushner.
Still, the Kushner intimates make no bones about the fact that the couple disagrees with the former President’s current pursuits. It’s clear that the close advisory relationship is no more.
The distance Kushner and Ivanka Trump have put between their current life and the former President has also helped, but that gap that is soon to close.
Road trip
For the last week, Kushner, Ivanka Trump and their children have been on a summer road trip, from Miami to, eventually, Bedminster. It’s the sort of summer activity millions of American families partake in, but the Kushner clan has made stop-offs along the way with a who’s who of Trump’s former administration.
Over the weekend, they were in Kiawah, South Carolina, staying with former US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who has made no secret of her desire to run for president but remains estranged from Trump’s inner circle after publicly criticizing his response to the 2020 election. The Kushners and the Haleys were spotted on a double date at a popular local restaurant. Haley said in April that she would not make a run for the White House in 2024 if Trump decides he will run – or she would at least discuss that scenario with him.
“That’s something that we’ll have a conversation about at some point if that decision is something that has to be made,” she said at a news conference.
Haley, like the Kushners, added that she has put space between herself and the former President, noting she had not talked to him since after the election but before the January 6 storming of the Capitol by a mob of his supporters.
The source close to Kushner downplayed the visit with Haley, saying South Carolina was just “one of the states along the way” on their drive.
Monday found them in Nashville, paying a visit to former State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus, a close friend of Ivanka Trump’s and frequent guest on Fox News. During the Trump administration, Ortagus worked for then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who has in recent months toyed with the idea of a run for the White House.
The Kushner family will eventually get to their East Coast digs, and the person close to Kushner noted they will also spend time at their old apartment in New York City, in addition to Bedminster. They’ll also perhaps visit the Hamptons, the summer playground of the rich and connected.
In Bedminster, the Kushner cottage and the Trump cottage are separated by mere tens of feet, about as close as the families have been for an extended period since the White House. Kushner’s allies say that won’t be a problem for him, as the two men are “not at odds,” as one describes their relationship. Another friend of Kushner’s says the men have a “good relationship, but [Kushner] is not anywhere near his political orbit.”
Things might be slightly more challenging for Ivanka Trump, though, who has for the last several months walked a tightrope between Trump, her father, and Trump, the wounded loser of a contentious election.
For the time being, she is not getting involved in the rhetoric, nor the unknowns that could be on the horizon for her father – politics, business, relationships or investigations.
“She is being very present, in the moment,” says a person who has worked closely with her for the last several years. “She’s not concerned.”
“After spending four years serving and traveling the country extensively, Ivanka is taking time with family and friends,” her former chief of staff, Julie Radford, tells CNN.

Explaining why the former President’s life is not simpatico with his daughter’s, one of the people close to Kushner said, “She is focused on her children, and spending time with them, period.”
“Listen, you lose an election, things happen, people get over it, they move on, these are natural consequences,” says the friend of Kushner’s.
The person familiar with Trump’s thinking insists no one has been “removed” from his inner circle and that whatever the status of the relationship, the blurred lines among employee, adviser and son-in-law exist because they’ve both made them such.
“This is family, and family is in its own category. Its own unique category,” the person said.