Archive

October 2024

Browsing

Israel succeeded Wednesday in its year-long mission to kill Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, the man accused of being one of the masterminds of the October 7, 2023 attacks.

But while Sinwar’s death is a huge blow for Hamas, it does not signal the immediate demise of the group. Hamas has vowed to continue fighting, saying that the killing of leaders – including Sinwar – does not mean the end of their movement.

A Friday statement from Hamas’ political office confirming Sinwar’s death said: “Hamas each time became stronger and more popular, and these leaders became an icon for future generations to continue the journey towards a free Palestine.”

As rumors swirl about Sinwar’s successor, here’s what we know about what’s next for Hamas:

It is unclear whether Sinwar himself left any instructions on who should replace him, but his younger brother Mohammed Sinwar is seen by many as his heir apparent. Like his brother, Mohammed is a hardline militant who recently became Hamas’ military commander.

Mousa Abu Marzouk, the deputy chief of Hamas’ political bureau who helped found Hamas, could also be a contender to become Sinwar’s replacement. He spent five years living in the United States before the FBI designated him as a terrorist. He was eventually deported.

Khaled Meshaal, the group’s former political chief, is also seen as a powerful contender for the role. Meshaal is well known internationally, having met with top officials including former United States President Jimmy Carter, Jordan’s King Abdullah II and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the past.

However, he might face difficulty over his past support for a Sunni uprising against Syrian President Bashar al Assad as Hamas, itself a Shia group, is supported by Shia-majority Iran.

Sinwar’s deputy Khalil Al Hayya is seen as another powerful contender for the role. He acted as the chief negotiator for Hamas during recent ceasefire talks in Cairo and is based in Qatar.

Both Meshaal and Al Hayya have been among Hamas’ top-ranking officials for many years. And both have been the targets of Israeli assassination attempts in the past. In 1997, Israeli Mossad agents posing as Canadian tourists sprayed a poisonous substance into Meshaal’s ear. The incident was widely publicized as the Israeli intelligence service agents were captured in Jordan.

Israel has killed Hamas’ previous leaders: In 2004 they killed Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. A few weeks later, his successor Abdel Aziz Rantisi was killed.

While Hamas has always managed to recover from multiple assassinations on its leadership, it is hard to say how they will now regroup, given how Hamas’ organizational structure changed under Sinwar’s rule.

Sinwar had consolidated power during the war, becoming Hamas’ sole decision maker in Gaza following the killing of the other two top Hamas officials there.

Mohammed al-Masri – popularly known as Mohammed Deif – was the commander of Hamas’ military arm, the Al-Qassam Brigades, and was killed in an Israeli airstrike in July. Deif’s deputy Marwan Issa was killed in March, according to the Israeli military. Hamas never acknowledged their deaths.

Sinwar became Hamas’ most senior leader after the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in the Iranian capital Tehran in July. Iran blamed the killing on Israel. The Israel Defense Forces did not comment on the accusation.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

In his first television interview since leaving Venezuela, Edmundo González Urrutia explained the role of the Spanish government in his departure from the Latin American country. The former diplomat also reiterated that he believes he is “more useful outside than inside,” free and not detained, to solve Venezuela’s political crisis.

Venezuela has been in a state of crisis since the country’s July presidential vote, in which authoritarian incumbent Nicolas Maduro was declared the winner by the country’s electoral authority – a body stacked with his allies – with 51% of the vote.

But tens of thousands of tallies published by the opposition suggested a win for Gonzalez. Venezuela’s opposition and multiple Latin American leaders refused to recognize Maduro’s victory, which sparked deadly protests during which thousands were arrested.

‘I had to negotiate with the regime’s envoys’

González described the days before he fled his home country. He first took refuge in the Dutch embassy because he had three summonses from the Venezuelan Public Ministry and an arrest warrant. “What awaited me was the raid of my house,” he stated. He claims he was in the Dutch embassy for 32 days “without anyone noticing I was there.”

Later, with his wife and team, he decided “the best option was to seek asylum in a friendly country like the Kingdom of Spain.” After two days at the Spanish ambassador’s residence in Caracas, González managed to leave Venezuela after signing a document at the Spanish embassy “that was initially going to be confidential” but “those who signed on behalf of the government took it upon themselves to disclose.”

The document in question accepts the ruling of the Electoral Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela (TSJ), which ratified President Maduro’s victory in the July 28 elections. The Venezuelan government has yet to provide detailed results by voting center or “table” to support that announcement.

In September, González said on social media that he signed the document after several hours “of coercion, blackmail, and pressure” in the presence of Venezuela’s Vice President Delcy Rodríguez and her brother Jorge Rodríguez, president of the National Assembly.

“I had to negotiate with the regime’s envoys” to leave the country, he said. “The legal weakling there was me: either I signed that [document] or I didn’t leave.”

The version of events shared by Venezuela’s National Assembly president, Jorge Rodríguez, differs from González. On September 18, Maduro’s representative assured in a press conference that they had not coerced the former diplomat and that he was the one who decided to contact the government.

González said that he never specifically requested the presence of Delcy and Jorge Rodríguez at the meeting.

“There were only four people, so someone took them without the proper authorization of the host, the ambassador himself,” he said.

The former diplomat said his last hours in Venezuela “were very tense” because he faced the prospect of leaving the country freely with his wife or staying at the embassy “without the possibility of leaving.”

He said that at the airport, he was just waiting to board the plane “to end this nightmare.”

Would María Corina Machado go into exile? González hopes not

González said leaving the country was a personal decision “that was appropriate to keep confidential,” so he only informed María Corina Machado — who was disqualified from running in the elections and backed González’s campaign — two days before his departure.

González said he explained his reasons to her, and the opposition leader agreed.

The candidate said he has maintained “permanent” contact with Machado and that they have a very fluid relationship.

This Wednesday, Machado denied having fled Venezuela, as Maduro previously claimed.

“Venezuelans know I am here in Venezuela, people know it, and Nicolás Maduro knows it too, but they are desperate to know where I am, and I will not give them that satisfaction,” she told Florida’s EVTV network.

Would exile be the future of Machado? “I hope not,” said González, stating that he has not discussed that scenario with her.

The role of the Spanish government

Narbona said she knows “the vice president stopped for a few hours at Barajas Airport” in Madrid, but she “has no more information than what has emerged over time.”

For Narbona, the political asylum granted by Spain to González benefits him because “he lived under threat and wanted to leave Venezuela.” Spanish opposition parties, like the conservative Popular Party [PP] and the far-right Vox, have accused the Spanish government of only helping Maduro’s regime with González’s asylum.

“I have found myself in the middle of the diatribe between the two main political forces in Spain,” González said, adding that the Spanish government has provided him with all the facilities in his exile.

On September 18, the Spanish Senate approved by majority a motion presented by the Popular Party urging the Spanish government to recognize González as the elected president of Venezuela.

The former diplomat said he does not know whether Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez is mediating with Nicolás Maduro’s regime. He reiterated that he considers dialogue always a tool to resolve a political crisis and says he supports the “important effort” of the Colombian and Brazilian governments to find a solution.

González’s goal: January 10

González said that he and the exiled opposition are working to respect the will “of the nearly 8 million who voted for a peaceful change.” The goal, he says, is to be in Venezuela on January 10 for the inauguration.

The National Electoral Council of Venezuela (CNE), controlled by Chavismo, says Maduro won with 51.95% of the votes to González’s 43.18%, although it has not yet published detailed results. This result is questioned by much of the international community for its lack of transparency.

Regarding the official figures, González says that “there is no evidence to prove they [Maduro’s regime] won.”

The opposition candidate said that an inauguration in exile has not been considered. At the same time, the possibility of not being in Venezuela on January 10 “is a scenario we have not considered,” but he is approaching it with “coolness and a fresh mind.”

This post appeared first on cnn.com

Abu Mohammed stands with red, bleary eyes. Women and young men walk on a muddied pathway as children run between rows of improvised tents in Deir al-Balah displacement camp, central Gaza.

Mohammed and others staying in makeshift displacement camps have survived Israeli bombardments that have laid waste to Gaza’s streets for over a year, enduring catastrophic violence, constant killings and disfigurement, and crippling hunger.

As Israel celebrated its killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar this week – with its allies hoping Sinwar’s death will now open a possibility for peace in Gaza – Mohammed and many others remain skeptical it will change their daily reality.

Sinwar was a divisive figure to Palestinians: a militant hardliner, Sinwar was seen as a brutal force by some, a pragmatic political thinker by others, and a freedom fighter to many.

Born in a refugee camp in 1962, his family displaced from the Palestinian village of Al-Majdal – in what is now the Israeli city of Ashkelon – Sinwar was “a symbol of the Palestinian people,” in Mohammed’s view and that of many others.

Many Gazans today are afraid to publicly voice support for Sinwar and Hamas for fear of being targeted by the Israeli military — which launched its siege of Gaza with the stated aim of destroying Hamas after it led the October 7 terror attacks, and to save the hostages taken that day. Others fear condemning Hamas, which controls the Palestinian enclave.

“Sinwar was a target for Israel and he was targeted and killed. He attacked Israel, and committed crimes that we have paid the price for … We paid with horrific tragedies, with the blood of our children, our money, and our homes.”

She too said she had little hope that his death would be a turning point in the war. “The assassination of leaders seems to change nothing. (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu wants more and more people to be killed. We wish to live in security, peace, and stability,” she said.

Sinwar’s last moments

Sinwar’s death has prompted speculation among Western allies over whether the coming weeks could signal the beginning of the end of fighting in Gaza, and the release of 101 remaining Israeli hostages.

But Netanyahu has given no signal he is ready to end the war. And Hamas has vowed to continue fighting.

On Thursday, the Israel Defense Forces released drone footage that it said shows Sinwar in his final moments. The edited video shows the interior of a hollowed-out building, where a man that the IDF identifies as Sinwar can be seen perched alone on an armchair.

In the footage, the figure’s face is obscured by a scarf and covered in a thick layer of dust. His right arm appears to be injured, as he turns toward the drone. He is holding what the IDF described as a piece of wood, before throwing it toward the lens.

The footage appeared to show Sinwar at his weakest – alone and nearing defeat. But that’s not how most Palestinians see it, according to Mustafa Barghouti, a physician and an independent Palestinian politician.

“This image will make him look like a hero for most Palestinians,” Barghouti added, explaining that Sinwar’s apparent defiance in his final moments would be perceived by Palestinians as part of a broader historical resistance, even among those who did not agree with the Hamas leader’s tactics.

Like Sinwar, at least 70% of residents in Gaza are refugees, or descendants of those uprooted by al-Nakba, or “the catastrophe,” according to Amnesty International, when about 700,000 Palestinians were forcibly expelled from their homes during the creation of Israel in 1948.

Decades later, those same descendants are grappling with the same reality of being unable to return to their homes in Gaza, with an estimated 69% of buildings in the enclave now destroyed or partly damaged, according to the CUNY Institute.

For Abu Fares, one of hundreds of thousands prevented from returning to their homes, Sinwar’s death is just a continuation of a brutal war. “It will not stop the battle or the fighting, because the children who carried their father’s dismembered body and those who carried their sister’s dismembered body — what do you expect from them after 20 years?”

‘I wish for my own death’

Sinwar’s killing comes as the humanitarian crisis in Gaza spirals and the death toll from Israeli airstrikes continues to rise.

At least 42,500 people have been killed since October 8, 2023, with another 99,546 injured, according to the Ministry of Health in Gaza. At least 1.9 million of Gaza’s 2.2 million people have been displaced, according to the UN.

Entire families have been erased, with many neighborhoods reduced to wastelands of thick sewage pools. More than a million people in northern Gaza are facing a looming famine compounded by Israel’s aid restrictions, the UN warned earlier this year.

Around 70% of Palestinians killed by Israel’s strikes are women and children, according to the Hamas-run Government Media Office (GMO). More than 17,000 children have been killed in the Israeli attacks since October 8, the office said.

Israel has said that its sustained military campaign in Gaza is designed to root out what remains of Hamas, following the Hamas-led attacks that killed 1,200 people in Israel and saw more than 250 people abducted, according to Israeli authorities.

Israel says it takes steps to minimize civilian harm, like making phone calls and sending text messages to residents in buildings designated for attack. For years, it has also said Hamas fighters use mosques, hospitals and other civilian buildings to hide from Israeli attacks and launch their own – claims that Hamas has repeatedly denied.

But human rights agencies and many world leaders, including Israel’s allies, have repeatedly raised concerns over Israel’s war conduct and the civilian toll. Groups like Amnesty International also say warnings do not absolve Israel of responsibilities under international humanitarian law to limit civilian harm.

Mahmoud Jneid, also displaced in Deir al-Balah, said the world’s focus should rest on civilian suffering – not Sinwar’s death. “Sinwar was a target. What about us, the displaced? The closure of crossings and the lack of food and drink for children make our situation worse than (his) assassination,” he said.

“I wish Israel would assassinate me too,” Jneid said. “My brothers and family have died, and I wish for my own death so that I can find peace.”

This post appeared first on cnn.com

Italian parents who have made the often difficult and expensive decision to have children through surrogacy abroad have been thrown into a state of fear after a sudden shift in the country’s already strict restrictions on bringing those children up in Italy.

Italy has broadened its legislation on surrogacy, which has been illegal in the country since 2004, to now criminalize “surrogacy tourism” in countries like the United States and Canada, subjecting any intended parent who breaks the law to fines of up to €1 million ($1 million) and jail terms of up to two years.

As written, the law does not affect parents whose children born of surrogacy are already registered in the country, but many parents of younger children fear they could be targeted anyway when their children reach school age and have to register for the public school system.

The law, which came into effect immediately, passed the Italian Senate 84-58 after an impassioned debate that lasted more than seven hours on Wednesday and at times seemed as if it would come to blows.

Protesters demonstrating in front of the Senate during the lengthy debate carried signs that said: “We are families, not crimes,” and featured photos of their children under the words “the children we could never have.” Meanwhile, some called the proposed law a “medieval” ruling in interviews with Italian media.

The bill was introduced by Giorgia Meloni’s ruling far-right Brothers of Italy party and personally pushed by the prime minister, who has found in Pope Francis an ally on the surrogacy issue – underscoring the continued political influence of the Catholic Church in Italy, especially when it comes to reproductive issues.

Italy was one of the last western European nations to legalize same-sex unions, which it did in 2016, but still does not recognize same-sex unions as “marriage” under pressure from the Italian Catholic Church.

Meloni welcomed the Senate’s decision on X Wednesday, calling it “a common sense rule against the commodification of the female body and children. Human life has no price and is not a commodity.”

Earlier this year, Francis called for a global ban on surrogacy, describing the practice as “deplorable” and insisting that “a child is always a gift and never the basis of a commercial contract.” The pope, however, has not called for the practice to be criminalized and a 2023 Vatican doctrinal ruling pointed out that children born through surrogacy can be baptized.

The Catholic Church opposes surrogacy because it is “contrary to the unity of marriage and to the dignity of the procreation of the human person” and is against in-vitro fertilization (IVF) because the process involves the disposal of unneeded embryos, which the church believes is immoral.

Francis has shifted the church’s approach on welcoming LGBTQ people, but has maintained a strong line opposing both abortion and surrogacy. He has framed his critique of surrogacy as part of his long-running concerns about a “throwaway culture” where human beings are considered as “consumer goods” to be discarded and in surrogacy sees a danger of poorer women being exploited.

The new Italian law does not differentiate between same-sex and heterosexual couples, nor between altruistic or paid surrogacy, but it will disproportionately affect the LGBTQ community, advocates fear.

“The alleged defense of women, the vaunted interest in children, are just fig leaves behind which the homophobic obsession of this majority is hidden, not so much,” Laura Boldrini, an Italian politician and former speaker of Italy’s lower house of Parliament who also joined the protest in front of the Senate posted on X.

“Law or no law, same-sex families exist and will continue to exist. We will always be at their side in the battle for the affirmation of the rights of boys and girls and the self-determination of women.”

Alessia Crocini, president of the Rainbow Families advocate group, said: “We as Rainbow Families will not stop and will continue our battle in the courts and in the streets. We will fight every day to affirm the beauty and freedom of our families and our sons and daughters.”

Italy already bans gay couples from adopting children and last year the country started removing lesbian mothers’ names from some birth registrations if they were not the biological parent. Many local governments have already changed birth registrations to allow for only “mother” and “father” rather than “parent 1” and “parent 2,” which is widely accepted across the European Union.

Michela Calabro, head of LGBTQ rights group Arcigay’s political arm, called the law a serious denial of individual freedoms and self-determination.

“Introducing a crime, even a universal one, not only limits the possibility of choice, but also fuels a patriarchal vision of women’s bodies,” she said in a statement on X. “This measure highlights the Government and Parliament’s inability to address other important and urgent issues in our country. In fact, the parliamentary majority once again chooses to demonstrate its strength mainly on ideological arguments, while on pragmatic issues it confirms its total inability.”

It is unclear how the new law will be enforced, or if DNA checks could be required when babies are said to be born to Italian women abroad.

LGBTQ activists who protested outside the Senate on Wednesday said that heterosexual couples make up 90% of all surrogacies.

They argue that those couples will still be able to “sneak their children in” and get around the new law since, in the US and Canada, intended parents’ names can be put on foreign birth certificates for babies born to surrogates in compliance with state rules. Gay male couples would find it harder to find a loophole when returning to Italy.

The new legislation could prove challenging for Meloni politically. She enjoys a strong approval rating, with the latest polls showing she has 29.3% support (up 3% from when she took office in late 2022).

But the broad reach of the legislation has prompted wide criticism, including from heterosexual couples who have come out to protest alongside those in the gay community. She is also a close political ally of tech billionaire Elon Musk, who has had children via surrogates and who spoke at her political convention in December, telling her supporters to “make more Italians” to combat the country’s dwindling birth rate.

The pope and Meloni have also found common ground on this topic, with the pair joining forces at a conference aimed at tackling Italy’s declining birth rate, while Francis has generated attention for his view that some couples nowadays prefer to have pets rather than children.

But not all of Meloni’s policies are in line with those of Francis. The same day the controversial law passed, Italy began shipping some migrant men rescued at sea to Albania, in a move that is starkly against the Church’s teaching that migrants should be welcomed and Francis’ outspoken advocacy on this topic.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

Amazon said Thursday it plans to host an election night special anchored by Brian Williams, marking the company’s first foray into live news coverage.

The one-night special will provide election results and analysis on Prime Video starting at 5 p.m. ET on Nov. 5, the company said. Amazon emphasized it will be a “non-partisan presentation” pulling information from a variety of third-party news sources.

Williams will lead the special and interview analysts across the political spectrum. Viewers will not be required to have a Prime subscription to access the stream.

“After 41 years in the business — from local news to network shows to cable news — this feels like the next big thing,” Williams, who left NBC News in 2021 after a 28-year run, said in a release. “And the global marketplace of Amazon is a natural home for this first-of-its-kind venture.”

Amazon has been increasingly moving into live sports programming on its Prime Video streaming service as a way to boost subscriptions and drive additional revenue to its lucrative advertising business. In July, Amazon signed an 11-year rights deal to carry NBA games starting with the 2025-26 season. Amazon also streams “Thursday Night Football” games and has the rights to stream some NHL games.

Now the company is angling to position itself as a “growing home for news viewers.” It offers streaming news channels on Prime Video, including live content from ABC News Live, CNN Headlines, LiveNOW from FOX and NBC News Now.

Disclosure: NBC and CNBC are divisions of NBCUniversal.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Universal’s Epic Universe theme park will open its gates on May 22, 2025, in Orlando, Florida.

Epic Universe is the company’s fourth theme park, part of a 750 acre development, and is the largest of all its properties, with five themed worlds: The Wizarding World of Harry Potter — The Ministry of Magic, Super Nintendo World, How to Train Your Dragon — The Isle of Berk, Celestial Park and Dark Universe.

First announced in 2019, Epic Universe represents the single-largest investment Comcast’s NBCUniversal has ever made in its theme parks business and in Florida overall, CEO Brian Roberts said at the time.

Construction was halted in July 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic, but began to ramp up again in March 2021.

Adding Epic Universe to its catalog of Orlando-based amusements allows Universal to turn its resort into a weeklong travel destination, and not just a two- or three-day trip for families. The company also operates Volcano Bay, a water park about a mile down the road from the Universal Studios parks.

Concept rendering of Universal Orlando Resort’s newest theme park, Epic Universe.NBC Universal

“This is such a pivotal moment for our destination, and we’re thrilled to welcome guests to Epic Universe next year,” said Karen Irwin, president and chief operating officer of Universal Orlando Resort, in a statement Thursday. “With the addition of this spectacular new theme park, our guests will embark on an unforgettable vacation experience with a week’s worth of thrills that will be nothing short of epic.”

Epic Universe will be anchored around the Loews Hotels’ Universal Helios Grand Hotel, a 500-room property that will have a dedicated entrance to the park for hotel guests.

Universal will begin offering some multiday tickets and packages starting Oct. 22. This first phase of tickets will allow guests to purchase three-, four- or five-day admission to Universal’s Orlando Resort, with one-day admission to Epic Universe.

Additionally, annual passholders will have the chance to buy single-day tickets to Epic Universe on Oct. 24 before they go on sale to the general public. Other ticketing options will be available at a later date.

Disclosure: Comcast is the parent company of NBCUniversal and CNBC.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

During his campaign for a second term, former president Donald Trump has proposed a string of tax giveaways: He has suggested “no tax on tips,” an idea he said he heard from a waitress in Nevada. He has declared that no one, regardless of income, should have to pay taxes on Social Security benefits or income earned working overtime hours.

Most recently, he called for making car-loan interest payments tax-deductible and said he doesn’t want Americans living abroad to pay U.S. taxes.

The slew of proposals have been popular with his supporters, and in some cases resonated outside Trump’s political base: Vice President Kamala Harris has followed Trump in supporting a more limited tax exemption for tips.

But Trump’s ideas add up to a version of tax policy that offers little in the way of a coherent, overarching vision — especially in the eyes of conservative tax policy experts who had hoped that a second Trump administration would bring a complete overhaul of the American income tax structure.

“Trump has come up with these himself,” said Stephen Moore, a Trump economic adviser and Heritage Foundation fellow who said he and others crafting tax plans have sometimes been surprised to hear the candidate announce ideas they never heard about.

“Look, he’s the candidate. If he wins, he’s going to be the president. We’re all just advisers. … But he is a businessman and he does know how the economy works.”

Despite Trump’s promotion of rewards and tax breaks for certain groups, Moore and another Heritage fellow, David Burton, said they think some ideas floated among conservatives — such as reducing the number of income tax brackets to just two — might still be on the table in a future Trump administration, if Republicans in Congress favor simplifying the tax code and Trump gets behind their plans.

“I think what you’re going to see if Trump wins in 2025 is a wholesale review of the whole tax system,” Moore said. “It will be one of those once-in-a-generation opportunities to potentially really clean out the whole tax system.”

If implemented, some of Trump’s ideas could have significant impact on the federal government’s finances. The Yale Budget Lab has estimated the cost of making car-loan interest deductible at up to $173 billion over 10 years, of not taxing tips at $107 billion over a decade, and of not taxing overtime at $866 billion over a decade. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says that not taxing Social Security benefits would cost even more — more than $1.6 trillion over the next decade.

Trump has also pledged to extend the tax cuts he oversaw in 2017, many of which are set to expire in 2025. Keeping that promise could mean giving up trillions in federal revenue, which could also appeal to conservatives who have long argued for shrinking the size of the U.S. government.

But Trump’s campaign trail rhetoric leaves some conservatives questioning whether broad reform of the tax system would ever be a goal under his administration.

“You might call it an exemption approach, a targeted approach or a populist approach,” Tax Foundation vice president William McBride said of Trump’s promises. “Tax reform, in general, means to go back and remove all of these types of special preferences and exemptions … so this is really going in the opposite direction of what is commonly understood to be fundamental tax reform. I can’t say I’m a fan of it.”

Others said Trump might run on popular sound bites but endorse conservatives’ broader plans if they get through Congress. “I do think these one-off proposals just reflect him campaigning,” American Enterprise Institute tax researcher Kyle Pomerleau said. “He would be willing to put his name on a large piece of legislation that reforms the tax code.”

Moore and Burton are two of the authors of a chapter on how to remake the tax system in the 900-page policy book compiled by the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025. Trump has disavowed that effort, but Burton described the Project 2025 goal as nothing more than “fairly conventional long-standing conservative and pro-market tax policy.” Their chapter called for flattening tax brackets in the near future, which would raise taxes on low-income earners and reduce them for the rich. In the long run, the authors wrote, the United States should replace income taxes altogether with a tax on spending.

“In principle, we would like to have a tax base that’s loophole-free and that leads to less distortions and enables lower tax rates,” said Burton, who is not advising Trump’s campaign.

Trump’s ideas have veered away from the principles that experts have tried to advance for tax reform, said Brett House, an economics professor at Columbia Business School. “It’s not really clear what the overarching goal would be of the proposals, beyond a sprinkling of really-hard-to-justify carve-outs that create false distinctions between one type of income and another,” he said. “They’re the kind of proposals that sound casually appealing … but what they could end up doing is massively increasing inequality and creating big loopholes for high-income earners.”

In some cases, Trump is directly contradicting his own prior policies — such as the question of capping deductions for state and local taxes. Trump’s 2017 law capped such deductions at $10,000, and some Republicans have called for allowing no SALT deductions at all. Recently, Trump said the opposite: He would favor renewing unlimited SALT deductions.

“Eventually, with a good tax system, you want a broad tax base and a low tax rate. That’s one of the basic principles,” Moore said, admitting that while he likes some of Trump’s specific campaign-trail ideas, Trump seems to be moving in the opposite direction. “I don’t know the answer to this: Is Congress in the mood for doing smaller things like Trump is talking about which are helping isolated groups? Or will President Trump, if he gets reelected, go for the gold and go for a rewrite of the whole tax system consolidating the brackets and lowering the rates?”

This post appeared first on washingtonpost.com

Over 35 seasons working as a ranger in Glacier National Park, Kim Peach, 67, recalls only two incidents in which he responded to a report of a gun being fired — and both became his most memorable days on the job.

So last year, when he spotted an advertisement featuring a smiling Tim Sheehy running for Senate, Peach immediately recognized the ex-Navy SEAL’s face, he said. It was the same man who had told him years earlier that he had accidentally shot himself in the right arm after his gun dropped to the ground while he said he was loading up gear after a hike.

Last spring, Peach shared his account of ticketing Sheehy $525 for discharging a weapon in Glacier National Park in Oct. of 2015 with The Washington Post — an account that was backed up by U.S. District Court and national park documents from the incident. The Post allowed him to speak on the condition of anonymity at the time because he feared political retaliation. But Laura Loomer and other conservative pundits quickly shared his identity online after the story published, leading to harassment, Peach said.

Now, angry at what he sees as Sheehy’s refusal to own up to the truth, Peach is speaking on the record to lend weight to his account of what happened 9 years ago. The Montana candidate, who looks poised to defeat Democratic incumbent Sen. Jon Tester and likely help flip the Senate to Republican control next year, has said he has a bullet lodged in his right arm from his time serving in Afghanistan. When asked earlier this year about the Glacier National Park incident, Sheehy said he lied to the ranger when he told him he had a fresh gunshot wound that day, in order to prevent the authorities from finding out about a potential friendly fire incident from 2012, which he feared could spark a military investigation.

Peach finds that hard to believe. “The truth isn’t complicated,” he said.

Sheehy campaign spokeswoman Katie Martin dismissed Peach as a partisan activist, pointing out that he attacks former president Donald Trump in one of his photos on Facebook. (Peach, a Democrat, is wearing a “Make Lying Wrong Again” hat in the photo.)

“Anyone trying to take away from the fact that Tim Sheehy signed up for war as a young man and spent most of his 20s in some of the most dangerous places in the world is either a partisan hack, a journalist with an agenda, or outright a disgusting person,’ Martin said.

“Tim has been and will continue to be a humble servant of our great nation, our veterans, and the men and women he admirably served with,” she continued. ‘He got into this race to put our country first and he won’t ever let any of this slander stop him from fighting every day as Montana’s next U.S. Senator.”

That October day in 2015 took an unexpected turn when Peach got a call on his radio directing him to the parking lot of Logan Pass, a popular Glacier National Park destination, after a dispatcher received a report that someone had accidentally shot himself there. The dispatcher later directed Peach to a hospital instead, saying the victim was now there, according to the ranger’s memory and his written report at the time. Sheehy, then a young businessman on a hike with his family, told Peach at the hospital he had accidentally shot himself with his Colt .45 revolver after it fell off a pile of gear in the back of his vehicle and misfired.

The doctor who treated his wound decided to leave the bullet in his right arm, Sheehy told Peach, and Sheehy seemed relieved no one else had been hurt. “I remember Sheehy obviously being embarrassed by the situation but at the same time thankful that it wasn’t worse,” Peach said.

His story that day seemed eminently believable to Peach. The only other incident where a gun fired in the park that he responded to involved someone accidentally firing a bullet into his own leg. In the Sheehy case, Peach said he confiscated and examined the gun in the parking lot of the hospital and saw a spent bullet casing in the cylinder, indicating the revolver had been fired. He returned the weapon after Sheehy paid the fine. In April, the Sheehy campaign did not respond to the ranger’s contention that he inspected the weapon or saw a missing bullet, but noted Peach did not mention a missing bullet in his report from the time. His lawyer called the ranger’s more recent recollections “a fabrication.”

In a statement Sheehy wrote in 2015 as part of the investigation into the gunshot, he wrote that he was “grateful no other persons or property were damaged” in the incident.

But in April, Sheehy told The Post that he sought medical attention that day because he fell during a hike and feared he had dislodged a bullet in his arm from Afghanistan that he had never reported to his superiors, for fear of sparking an investigation into its origins. He said hospital staff reported the gunshot wound to the local authorities, even though it was not fresh. Then, Sheehy said, he lied to Peach when the ranger came to investigate and said he had accidentally shot himself to avoid potentially triggering a military investigation into his former unit.

Sheehy, who received a Purple Heart and Bronze Star with valor during his service for actions unrelated to the gunshot wound, said in April that he never reported the 2012 gunshot injury and believes the bullet may have been the result of friendly fire during a night mission.

Sheehy’s lawyer argued then that the weapon he was carrying in 2015, a Colt .45 long, could not misfire when dropped. A ballistics expert consulted by The Post said it would be very unlikely for the gun to misfire.

His campaign initially said in the spring that Sheehy was seeking hospital records from 2015 to verify his account, but later ignored questions from The Post about whether he had obtained those records or would release them. In May, Sheehy told Montana Public radio that it’s “insulting and ridiculous” that he would need to provide medical records from the incident after “serving my country and being wounded overseas.”

In April, a former teammate recalled Sheehy saying he was struck by a ricochet bullet while they were serving together in 2012. That person spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is a military reservist and said he was not authorized to talk to the media. The Sheehy campaign put him in touch with The Post. Other service members who served with Sheehy in Afghanistan either declined to comment or could not recall him discussing a gunshot wound.

Sheehy’s forceful denial that a gun ever went off in Glacier National Park has angered Peach, who feels that the candidate has muddied the waters by saying he lied to him in 2015. Peach — who is also a veteran, although not a combat veteran — also does not agree with the way Sheehy has suggested reporting on the incident is out of bounds.

“He said that questioning his military service was ‘disgusting,’” Peach said. “What is disgusting is saying a wound from a negligent, accidental firearm discharge is a wound received in combat.”

The ranger, a Democrat, said he hopes he would come forward with his story no matter what political party Sheehy belonged to. “I have no personal vendetta against Tim Sheehy. But when a person makes a statement that’s not true somebody has to call them on it,” he said.

Peach pointed out that Democratic vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz has clarified that he “misspoke” when he’s said in the past that he had carried “weapons of war” while at war during his time in the service, though he did not serve in combat. “Tim Sheehy should do the same,” he said.

Peach started out on the park’s fire crew in 1986, after studying natural resource conservation at a university in Minnesota, and then moved into wildlife management. He went to the police academy in the late 1990s and became a law enforcement ranger.

At the time of their encounter, Peach felt a lot of sympathy for Sheehy as a fellow veteran who quickly took responsibility for the incident. “I just thought they’re a young couple with two kids who had an unfortunate accident,” he recalled of Sheehy and his wife, Carmen.

But now, his dismay has grown as he questions Sheehy’s account of what happened, and as the candidate looks increasingly likely to become a U.S. senator.

“He’s tough enough to keep a bullet in him for two or three years and then slips and falls, bumps his elbow and asks to go to the emergency room?” Peach asked. “His story just has so many holes.”

This post appeared first on washingtonpost.com

Donald Trump has long argued that he avoids policy specifics because it limits his ability to negotiate. If he states publicly that he wants to do Specific Thing X, this suggests, his ability to pressure trade partners is hamstrung by their understanding his bottom line.

You can see how this would appeal to Trump. It certainly comports with his experience prior to seeking the presidency, though it fails to account for the fact that the negotiating position of the U.S. government is magnitudes of order more robust than any private company. (He did come to appreciate the way in which the government could offer leverage of its own.) It also lets him avoid getting into policy specifics, something in which he’s never demonstrated any actual interest.

In the 2016 campaign, there was one policy point for which he regularly offered detailed specifics: his proposed wall on the border between the United States and Mexico. Often mentioning his background in construction, he would talk about how deep its foundations would go and which materials would provide the most effective barrier. Most of all, though, he’d talk about how tall it was going to be.

“You take precast plank,” Trump said in August 2015. “It comes 30 feet long, 40 feet long, 50 feet long.” You could easily make a 30-foot wall out of that. Or, as he said in February 2016, maybe it would be 35 to 40 feet tall. And so on.

Eventually, he moved away from those specifics in favor of using the wall as a measure of how mad he was at immigrants and their defenders. A few minutes after predicting a 40-foot wall, a journalist noted that (despite Trump’s pledge) Mexico said it wouldn’t pay for the wall. Well, Trump replied, “the wall just got higher.”

This became a tagline: The wall just got 10 feet higher! His crowds ate it up, understanding that he wasn’t saying the wall would actually be 80 feet tall or whatever but, instead, that the wall was a representation of how Trump would lash out against the things they disliked. Oh, Mexico doesn’t like a 40-foot wall? Well, how about a 50-foot-tall one. The D.C. elites think that’s ridiculous and counterproductive? Now it’s 60 feet tall. Keep going, guys, and see how tall the wall gets.

Eight years later, Trump’s campaign is centered on another policy proposal that mirrors how he once talked about the wall: tariffs.

Like the wall, Trump embraces tariffs because they are viewed as punitive. He can tell his audience that the imposition of fees on imports will serve as a way to punish the Chinese and other foreign manufacturers. As with the wall, the tariffs would end up being paid for by Americans (since the costs of tariffs are paid by the importer, who passes a big chunk of those costs on to buyers). But, as with the wall, Trump assures his followers that it’s the foreigners who will feel the pain.

Then there’s the fake, malleable specificity of the scale of tariffs. Instead of talking about height, Trump keeps talking about percentages. Maybe the tariffs on goods from foreign countries will be 20 percent. Maybe the ones on products from China will be 60 percent. Maybe he’d double or triple the overall price. Maybe the tariffs would surge to 1,000 percent!

These are not serious proposals, any more than a 60-foot wall was. The inflated numbers serve not as a prediction of what he’ll do but, instead, as a measure of how mad he is at the people who would pay the price (at least according to him).

Speaking to Fox News’s Maria Bartiromo over the weekend, Trump assured her that the numbers he was offering wouldn’t go into effect — because, he said, companies would be scared into manufacturing their products domestically.

“So you’re not going to actually push prices higher?” Bartiromo said. “That’s your thinking?”

Of course, Trump assured her. Yes, he was saying he’d impose a 200 percent tariff, but he was “using that just as a figure of speech.” She pointed out that he used that particular figure a lot, to which he replied, “Well, I will say 100, 200. I will say 500. I don’t care.”

The point isn’t the specific. The point is the rhetorical effect.

Some Trump allies have argued that this is the important point: He wouldn’t actually implement tariffs that would have a predictable inflationary effect on the American consumers who would end up incurring the costs. Instead, he’s just staking out an extreme position from which he can negotiate.

The problem with that argument is seen in Trump’s actual presidency, particularly when contrasting his rhetoric around tariffs with what he said about the wall. Halfway through his term in office, he began facing criticism from right-wing media personalities for failing to build any wall. So he forced a government shutdown in an effort to get funding for a wall, eventually giving up that fight in favor of declaring a national emergency that allowed him to appropriate funding from other places, mostly the military. The wall was built.

Trump would almost certainly feel similar pressure to implement tariffs, purported punitive measures against foreign manufacturers. He imposed tariffs when he was in office the first time around! The question isn’t whether he’d do this but, instead, how broadly they’d be implemented.

For now, though, the point of Trump’s rhetoric on tariffs isn’t to offer a precise explanation for how he’d use the tool to advance American interests. As with his talk about the wall in 2016, it’s to present himself as an outside-the-box thinker, someone who will buck convention (and the warnings of economists) to inflict damage against foreign companies and countries. And the more you complain about it, the more damage he says he’s going to inflict.

Should he win the election, tariffs will follow. They won’t be 1,000 percent any more than the wall was 60 feet tall. (It ended up being about 30 feet.) But, given Trump’s interest in saving face, they won’t be zero.

This post appeared first on washingtonpost.com

On the lengthy menu of unusual aspects to Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, one item stands out: his consistent and diverse efforts to sell things to his supporters.

All presidential candidates make pitches to their supporters, of course, often to the point of irritation. But those appeals are generally centered on efforts to get campaign contributions, money that the campaigns can then spend on getting the candidate elected. But while Trump’s campaign is making those sorts of appeals, the candidate himself is also spending time and energy selling other things for his own account: sneakers, digital images, Bibles, some sort of crypto something or other.

This is unusual for a presidential candidate but not really surprising for Trump, who has spent a lot longer trying to make money by putting his name on stuff than he has been a Republican. There’s a distinct farewell-tour vibe to his third consecutive presidential campaign, from a not-politically-useful campaign event at Madison Square Garden on Oct. 27 to the seeming everything-must-go effort to unload a wide array of Trump-branded items.

All well and good for Trump, but not that great for his campaign.

The New York Times looked at the “creative bookkeeping” it said the campaign was undertaking to expand its relatively modest coffers. That phrase is a fraught one. Earlier this year Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts in New York for using “creative bookkeeping,” if you will: creative bookkeeping specifically centered on hiding money that was spent to boost his 2016 campaign. That is one way to run a low-cost presidential campaign: skirt the laws around transparency.

Another is to outsource campaign functions. Trump’s team has done this in some obvious ways, including tasking outside groups with running his turnout efforts. But the effort goes well beyond that, with the Times noting that his campaign had only 11 employees on its payroll in August, the most recent month for which full spending data was available.

This is in part because the campaign has offloaded its direct voter contact, which often means setting up offices in targeted states and hiring people to staff them and do the actual outreach. It is in part, too, because the campaign is “bending the rules to their breaking point,” in the words of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Dan Weiner, who spoke to the Times. Consider that in 2020, Trump’s campaign employed more than 200 people in August. And even that was modest: In August 2012, Barack Obama’s reelection bid employed about 900.

If we visualize the August spending by each major-party campaign since 2012, we can see just how small the purple “payroll” sliver is in the 2024 spending for Trump. (The circles below are scaled to total spending.)

Both in terms of raw spending and as a percentage of total August spending, Trump’s 2024 campaign expenditures on staff are modest. (You can also see that a lot of those August 2020 employees weren’t making very much.)

Trump has always run lean campaigns. In 2016 — thanks in part to offloading $130,000 in expenses to the Trump Organization — his campaign spent about $353 million, or $240 million less than Hillary Clinton and $130 million less than Mitt Romney four years prior.

But it’s obviously the case that, with more money coming into the campaign, his campaign would have more money to spend: money to spend on ads, money to spend on staff. Perhaps he feels little urgency to do so, given that he is running about even with Vice President Kamala Harris, even though she was outspending him by more than 2 to 1 as of the most recent filing period. Why worry about raising more?

Especially when he could instead push those supporters to buy things that put money in his bank account, rather than the campaign’s.

This post appeared first on washingtonpost.com