Politics

Donald Trump had recently finished a familiar riff about banning gender transition surgery for children when the former president, speaking to an audience of Evangelical voters, moved on to something new: a policy that would affect transgender adults. “I will ban all taxpayer funding for sex or gender transitions at any age,” said Trump, receiving thunderous applause at the Faith & Freedom Coalition conference in Washington last month. The Republican leader, who moments earlier had also pledged to reinstate a ban on transgender men and women serving in the military, paused for several seconds to soak in the crowd’s adulation.

Former Donald Trump impeachment lawyer and Ethics Czar Norm Eisen gave a list of the top co-defendants that he thinks will also be indicted along with the former president when it comes to Jan. 6 and the attempt to overthrow the 2020 election.

Thanks to @realTuckFrumper for the link.

Full article text:

---

There is no reason campaigns should run for a year and a half, and Congress actually has the power to end this political insanity.

---

The first Republican presidential primary debate is scheduled for Aug. 23. It is but one of 10 to 12 such events, in addition to at least eight other forums hosted by outside organizations, to say nothing of the array of town halls and one-on-one interviews which will inevitably appear on cable channels, network news, and any number of fringier online video outlets.

By the time the primary race officially begins with the Iowa caucuses in January, we’ll have had dozens of opportunities to see former President Donald Trump, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and the probable also-rans who populate the rest of the field deliver their finely-honed canned sniping and consultant-crafted one-liners.

And that’s exactly the problem: Our presidential elections are far too long and much too stupid.

No one wants this. Certainly, no one needs this. Congress can and should cut down on the stupidity by limiting the length, and this is something our lawmakers could manage with ample bipartisan support.

Election law, particularly where campaign finance is concerned, is often a contentious subject. Who gets to donate and how much money they can give, how and when we can vote, where to draw district lines, who will count the votes and who will check their work—these are all questions easily drawn into partisan battles because of the politically disparate effects different answers can have.

But what I’m interested in here is time, and time passes equally for us all. It also happens to be clearly within congressional purview.

Parts of our election timeline are already determined by federal law and the Constitution. Congress fixed the general Election Day in 1845, a decision prompted by the rise of the telegram. National uniformity was needed, the thinking went, because if news could travel more quickly, early results might unfairly sway decisions in later voting states.

“The sheer length of our presidential elections isn’t only annoying and inconvenient. It’s a two-year simmer, cooking our bitterness at politicians and neighbors alike into a reductive concentrate.”

The Constitution also gives Congress the authority to “determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.” That part happens in mid-December, and the electors’ votes are counted in Washington, D.C. by Congress on—I’m guessing you know this one, given how it went last time—Jan. 6.

Finally, the 20th Amendment, adopted in 1933, finishes out the schedule with the president’s inauguration date, Jan. 20, moved up from Mar. 4 due to faster modes of travel.

So here’s my very simple proposal: If Congress can determine when our presidential elections end, it should also determine when they begin. And they should begin much later than they do.

Other, similar countries do not have elections this long. (The United Kingdom, for example, allows official campaigning for just 25 working days.) They’re spared months of televised inanities. They needn’t pretend to care about the nth “debate” which doesn’t deserve the name. They don’t have a six-month primary debacle in which later votes are not just unfairly swayed but rendered completely irrelevant.

We could be free of all that stuff too. Maybe it would take a constitutional amendment, just to be safe, but I don’t think so, given that 1845 precedent.

All Congress needs to do is add three dates to our campaign law: one for the earliest launch of campaign exploratory committees, one for the launch of campaigns proper, and one for a universal primary vote and caucus day.

The crucial question, of course, is what those dates should be. I’d suggest a pretty aggressive schedule of a month for exploration, a month for primaries, and a month to pick the winner. Working back from the election in early November, we wouldn’t be in election mode until—at the earliest—Aug. 1, 2024. I’m practically salivating at the thought.

We could reclaim about 18 (mostly useless) months out of every four years. We could ignore these people’s babbling and bickering, the personal spats and the howling vacuum where policy content ought to be. Candidates would be forced to strategize more carefully, to prune their content to just the most important stuff, just what they can fit in three short months. That’s a discipline they very obviously need.

And a tightly scheduled election wouldn’t mean no debates. My timeline would allow about three debates ahead of each vote, assuming a once-weekly schedule. Paying attention to six two-hour sessions over the course of two months is a reasonable proposition for normal, busy adults who have real things to do in our lives.

From the first primary debate in early September to Election Day, the whole thing would be roughly the length of a British TV series—or a class at your gym, or a book club you actually stick with, or half a semester of school, from the first day through midterms.

We could do this—and we might even be able to do it well. Or at least a little bit better.

The sheer length of our presidential elections isn’t only annoying and inconvenient. It’s a two-year simmer, cooking our bitterness at politicians and neighbors alike into a reductive concentrate. Maybe it’s unavoidable that we’ll hit a political boiling point by Election Day.

With so much power at stake, I suspect that’s true. But it could at least be a quick boil. We might then get burned less along the way.

Zimbabwe's main opposition leader Nelson Chamisa promised economic prosperity and an end to corruption as he launched his party's campaign on Sunday for national elections set for Aug. 23.

The state said this week it will not participate in a federal program that would provide $120 in benefits to each eligible child,.

Alternative for Germany party condemned as 'disgusting and homophobic' for photo showing a downwards-facing rainbow triangle in a campaign

Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. attempted to walk back his controversial remarks suggesting that COVID-19 was “ethnically targeted” to spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people on Saturday.

GOP leaders brazenly skirted a state Supreme Court ruling with a law shielding the money from public scrutiny. Many other states are doing likewise. Are we repeating the tobacco settlement debacle?

Most everything has an expiration date, but one thing you may not have expected to expire was your vote-by-mail ballot.

Lax rules let a Saudi-owned company pump water from Arizona state land to grow alfalfa for the kingdom’s cattle.

Full article text:

---

Former Sens. Joe Lieberman and Doug Jones on Sunday faced-off in a debate over the viability of No Labels' potential bipartisan third-party presidential ticket in 2024

---

Former Sens. Joe Lieberman and Doug Jones appeared Sunday on ABC's "This Week" to debate the viability of a bipartisan third-party presidential ticket in 2024 -- and whether that effort could serve as a spoiler in the race for the White House.

Lieberman, a Democrat-turned-independent who represented Connecticut, is the founding chair of No Labels, which is preparing a possible "unity" ticket that would include both parties and offer, he said, another option for those voters dissatisfied with a potential rematch between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.

"We're in this to give the majority of the American people who feel that the major two parties are failing them a third choice, both in policies, such as we're going to release in New Hampshire [on Monday], but also possibly in a third candidate," Lieberman told "This Week" anchor George Stephanopoulos. "And we've been very explicit ... If the polling next year shows, after the two parties have chosen their nominees, that, in fact, we will help elect one or another candidate, we're not going to get involved."

Jones, an Alabama Democrat and staunch Biden ally who has joined a group to counter No Labels, rejected that thinking.

"Those polls right now mean nothing," he shot back at Lieberman, referencing reticence for both Biden and Trump. "This past weekend, you saw that the Biden-Harris team raised $70 million, 30% of those were new donors," Jones added. "That is not a candidate that is being rejected by the American people.

Of No Labels, he said, "There is no way on God's green earth that they can get to 270 electoral votes, which means they will be a spoiler, one way or another."

Not so, Lieberman insisted. The problem wasn't No Labels, he said. "The problem is the American people are not buying what the two parties are selling anymore. And I think the parties would be wiser to think about that."

Lieberman has experience facing third party bids himself: As the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 2000, he and presidential hopeful Al Gore lost Florida by a few hundred votes in a state where the Green Party's Ralph Nader got nearly 100,000 ballots, with Lieberman at the time calling any vote for Nader actually a vote for opponent George W. Bush.

The dueling views on No Labels come amid Democratic handwringing over whether the group's plan -- which it says would comprise of one Democrat and one Republican on the same ticket next year -- is more likely to peel off disaffected Republican voters who would vote for Biden in a pure head-to-head with Trump next year.

Lieberman said Sunday that No Labels would hold off on its campaign if Democrats and Republicans both embrace centrism.

"We have said all along that we're not yearning to run a third-party ticket. If one or both parties move more toward the center in their policies ... and maybe think about the two candidates being so unpopular among the American people, we won't run," he said.

Jones said there was already a more moderate option available in Biden, noting the president's cooperation with Republican lawmakers in Congress.

"Look at what he has done, bringing the infrastructure package together, pulling that together for the first time in decades to do infrastructure, for the PACT Act [for veterans], the CHIPS Act [for manufacturing]," Jones said.

"I don't know why in the world somebody thinks that Joe Biden's administration is so far left, unlike a Donald Trump or someone else that is an extreme right," he argued.

In interviews and public statements, the group has repeatedly insisted that while polling proves there's an appetite for a third option in 2024, No Labels would take an "off ramp" if they are wrong.

"That sort of runs against human nature, doesn't it? Once a campaign starts, it's hard to stop," Stephanopoulos pressed Lieberman on "This Week."

"The American people don't like what the two parties are doing," Lieberman responded. "And they particularly don't like the two candidates that they seem set on nominating."

Jones, however, took issue with No Labels largely operating outside of public scrutiny.

"They're not disclosing their donors. They're not playing by the same rules," he said. (A No Labels spokesperson previously told ABC News: "We never share the names of our supporters because we live in an era where far-right and far-left agitators and partisan operatives try to destroy and intimidate organizations they don't like by attacking their individual supporters.")

Jones on Sunday criticized how No Labels might also put together its ticket -- not through a series of public primaries but through back-room discussions that undercut the very pitch Lieberman was making.

"That's not very democratic. That's not a choice," he said. "It's a false choice and really an illusion as to what they're doing."

Even some Republicans have cast doubts on No Labels' viability, pointing to past failures by third-party candidates to make a legitimate run at the White House. The group has also faced roadblocks in its effort to get access to the ballot in all 50 states.

"I think it’s a fool’s errand. ... I’m not in this for show time. I’m not in this, you know, for making a point. I’m in this to get elected president of the United States," former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who is running for the White House as a Republican, said on "This Week."

"And there are only two people who will get elected president of the United States in November of '24 -- the Republican nominee for president, and the Democratic nominee for president."

Full article text:

---

The candidate insisted to Fox News that stories of his campaign’s issues were just attacks by a “corporate press” out to get him.

---

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has seen woe after woe in his campaign for the Republican nomination, forcing him to cut staff and actually engage with traditional media outlets.

But the governor seemingly donned a pair of rose-colored lenses in an interview on Fox News’ MediaBuzz on Sunday, downplaying problems and pointing to his trips to early primary states. It’s there, he told host Howard Kurtz, where he’s found his voting audience—once they meet him in person.

“We were just in Iowa on Friday at the Family Leaders Summit. That was effectively the kickoff to Iowa caucus season,” DeSantis said. “So Iowans are starting to pay more attention to it. We were able to talk to thousands of people over a two-day period, and the number one thing I hear from people is this. They’re like, ‘Yeah, you know, I knew you did good things in Florida, but I hadn’t seen you yet, and now that I’ve seen you, I’m for you.’”

DeSantis’ claim comes despite an avalanche of media reports about his personal awkwardness and questions about whether he has the charisma to succeed on the trail.

DeSantis framed the barrage of negative press stories as the workings of a “corporate press” that does not want to see him “dismantle the administrative state.” He insisted the Republican debates would be another vector for highlighting his personality to voters.

“There’s a lot of Republican voters out there, they like what we’ve done in Florida. They know I’m a good governor,” DeSantis said. “But they haven’t seen a lot about me up close and personal, so that gives us a great opportunity to be able to share our vision.”

Even with six months before a single vote is cast in the race, DeSantis’ time to make that case to voters is short.

The candidate has largely limited sit-down interviews to conservative media outlets, such as Fox News and the Christian Broadcasting Network. His finances have been strapped, and he burned through nearly $8 million in the first six weeks of his candidacy, according to an NBC News analysis. DeSantis raised $20 million in the second quarter, millions ahead of Donald Trump, but $14 million of that was from donors who maxed out their donations and $3 million must be set aside for a general election campaign.

There have been signs of a strategy shift. DeSantis fired about 10 event planning staffers on Thursday, according to Politico, though he still boasts the largest campaign staff in the Republican field. CNN also announced that Jake Tapper would interview DeSantis on Tuesday, the governor’s first extended interview on the network since 2017.

DeSantis refused to address these issues head-on during his MediaBuzz interview, instead noting just how well he does—once voters meet him.

“The more I’m out there, the more support we get in these early states, and it is a state-by-state primary,” he said. “So I think it would be political malpractice to be running for president fixated on national rather than Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina. So that’s what we’ve done. You can make up ground, and we are making up ground in all those states. That is not really going to be reflected in the national poll because they’re such small states that you’re not going to end up doing that. We have our eye on the prize.”

Former president claimed American dream ‘dead’ under Joe Biden during Turning Point Action Conference speech

Full article text:

---

A landmark referendum backed by the government would give Indigenous people constitutional recognition and greater say on legislation and policy affecting them.

---

A proposal by the Australian government to recognize the country’s Indigenous people in the constitution has inflamed a culture war and set off divisive debates — including among Indigenous people themselves.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s center-left Labor government is backing a landmark referendum to enshrine in the Australian Constitution an Indigenous body — known as a “Voice to Parliament” — to advise the government on legislation and policy affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who make up almost 4% of Australia’s population of 26 million.

Unlike other former British colonies such as the United States, Canada and New Zealand, Australia has no treaty with its Indigenous people, who are not mentioned in the 1901 constitution. Like Indigenous peoples in the United States and elsewhere, Indigenous Australians fare much worse than their fellow countrymen on life expectancy, incarceration rates and other measures of socioeconomic well-being.

Supporters say the referendum’s success would improve Australia’s image and help Indigenous peoples in other nations.

“It’s an opportunity for Australia to be unique in the world, sharing over 60,000 years of Indigenous heritage and culture in a practical way that gives greater fairness to Indigenous people,” said Thomas Mayo, director of the nonprofit group Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition, as well as a Kaurareg Aboriginal and a Kalkalgal, Erubamle Torres Strait Islander.

After being approved by the Senate last month, the referendum is expected to be held between October and December. Opposition conservatives are actively campaigning against it, saying that no other demographic in Australian society is allowed such privileges and that they would give Indigenous people excessive power in Parliament.

Earlier this month, thousands of people across Australia turned out at rallies organized by the referendum’s “yes” campaign. But a poll last month by The Sydney Morning Herald found that support for the referendum was at 49%, down from 53% in May.

Australians have voted on 44 referendum proposals since 1901, only eight of which have succeeded.

Polarization over the Voice referendum has fueled racist behavior, Mayo said, including on social media, where he said he had seen “a sharp rise in vile, racist comments towards me and towards other Indigenous people that are advocating for this.”

Nine Entertainment, a major Australian media outlet, apologized last week over a full-page advertisement in its daily newspaper that featured Mayo and was criticized as racist. The advertisement, paid for by the “no” campaign, showed Michael Chaney, chairman of the Australian conglomerate Wesfarmers and a supporter of the referendum, handing money to Mayo, who is depicted as a child standing at his feet.

The referendum also has strong opponents within the Indigenous community.

“Of course it’s creating division, because we’re trying to fit into a framework, a colonialist framework,” said Taylah Gray, a member of the Wiradjuri people and Indigenous rights campaigner who has not yet decided how to vote.

The Voice proposal is a futile and “cosmetic” change, said Gary Foley, a veteran Indigenous activist, member of the Gumbaynggirr people and a professor of history at Victoria University in Melbourne.

He said the referendum was likely to fail due to Australia’s deepening polarization and its reluctance to confront its problematic past.

“The majority of Australians know absolutely nothing of their own history,” he said. “How are Australians today in a position to make an informed decision about something they know nothing about?”

Some Indigenous people who oppose the constitutional change argue that it means ceding sovereignty to those who took their lands by force.

What Indigenous people want, Foley said, “is self-determination — political and economic independence.”

Lidia Thorpe, the first Aboriginal senator from the state of Victoria, said the Voice could override existing Indigenous governance systems.

“I have supported and amplified the voices of the Sovereign ‘No’ camp, which is made up of First Nations people across the country that have never ceded their sovereignty and do not want to be recognised in the colonizer’s constitution,” she told NBC News in a written statement.

Thorpe is instead calling for more concrete actions, saying the government should first implement the recommendations from reports in 1991 and 1997 on the deaths of Aboriginal people in custody and the separation of Aboriginal children from their families.

“Our people are in a desperate situation as a result of record incarceration and child removal rates and the government already has the policies that will make an immediate difference,” said Thorpe, who voted last month against holding the referendum.

Thorpe has urged Australians, who are required to vote by law, to vote no, while Foley is encouraging them to spoil their ballots.

“It’s about time governments enabled Aboriginal people to determine their own destiny, instead of having white racists determine what our destiny is,” he said.

Finlay said she was confident that constitutional recognition would not impede Indigenous sovereignty, and could even breathe life into the treaty process.

“At the moment,” she said, “I don’t see that we have any mechanisms” that will allow a treaty to be negotiated at the federal level.

“The Voice will allow us to do that,” she said.

Every past Indigenous advisory body has ended up being either watered down or abolished as governments have changed, fueling a mistrust of such initiatives among some Indigenous people.

Gray said she remained “wary” of any government structure aimed at improving the lives of Indigenous people, saying they had been subjected to “centuries of violence, displacements, broken promises” by governments from both the left and the right.

But Mayo said enshrining the Voice in the constitution will protect it from the same fate as its predecessors, putting it out of reach of future governments “that either are avoiding accountability or using Indigenous lives and our issues as a political football.”

Despite their opposing views, Foley, Mayo, Finlay and Grayl agreed that a majority “no” vote on the referendum would be irreversibly harmful for Indigenous rights.

“There’s everything to gain if we succeed in being able to self-determine who speaks for us, and to influence the decisions that are made about us,” Mayo said.

If the referendum should fail, he said, Indigenous people will be worse off “because the Australian people will have officially dismissed that long and proud history, heritage and culture.”

“It’ll be officially dismissing a step towards greater fairness in our country,” Mayo said.

Full article text:

---

California and Colorado have passed laws that would permit noncitizens authorized to work in the U.S. to become police officers, while New Jersey and other states consider similar legislation.

---

As police departments struggle to recruit and retain officers, some look to a previously untapped pool of applicants to fill job vacancies.

States, including California and Colorado, have begun to pass laws that would permit noncitizens who are authorized to work in the U.S. to become police officers, while others, such as New Jersey, mull similar legislation. The measures make recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program eligible for law enforcement work.

Beneficiaries of the DACA program have historically been barred from holding jobs in law enforcement because of various provisions in state laws.

The DACA program, which provides protections against deportation for people who arrived in the United States without legal status before turning 16 and who have lived in the country continuously since at least 2007, has about 580,000 active recipients in the United States.

Christian Alberto Mendoza-Almendarez, 30, is among them. He was brought to the U.S. at age 7 after his family fled Mexico’s drug cartels.

He has wanted to be a police officer since he was a boy watching his father patrol the streets of San Luis Potosi, Mexico. But his immigration status makes him ineligible in Texas, where he serves as a neighborhood liaison with the Austin Police Department.

He's thinking about moving to California or Colorado to fulfill his dream.

“We’re not here to change the requirements,” he said. “These people have what it takes to become a police officer.”

Before changing its law last year, California required that police officers, or peace officers, be U.S. citizens or permanent residents who were eligible for and applied for citizenship.

In Colorado, DACA recipients previously could not legally carry firearms. Colorado’s new measure, which was signed into law by Gov. Jared Polis in April, does away with that prohibition.

"It's a smart policy, especially with fewer and fewer people wanting to go into law enforcement," said Art Acevedo, the interim chief of police for the Aurora Police Department in Colorado, which has 71 open positions.

Acevedo, who immigrated to the U.S. from Cuba with his family as a young child and headed police departments in Houston, Austin and briefly in Miami, said a person’s nation of origin should have no bearing on their suitability for a career in law enforcement.

Supporters of similar measures have noted that noncitizens who are authorized to work in the U.S. can already serve in the military, making law enforcement work a natural extension.

Critics of such legislation, however, say careers in law enforcement should be reserved for U.S. citizens and that noncitizens should not be able to carry firearms or possess the power to arrest citizens.

Chapin Rose, a Republican member of the Illinois Senate, blasted the legislation that passed the state House and Senate but has not been signed into law, saying during a recent hearing that “there is a greater principle at stake.”

“It’s just a fundamentally bad idea,” he said during the hearing in May. “I don’t care where this individual is from. Australia — they should not be able to arrest a United States citizen on United States soil.”

Police departments across the country have been struggling to recruit and retain officers over the past several years.

The Police Executive Research Forum, a law enforcement policy group, has attributed the decrease in staffing to “extreme stresses” caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and a decline in police officers’ morale, as well as protests and demonstrations following the murder of George Floyd in 2020 by Minneapolis police, among other issues. But others have attributed the decrease to calls for accountability and police reform spurred by Floyd’s murder, and to officers leaving for higher paying jobs in the private sector.

Joseph Farrow, chief of police for the University of California, Davis, led the effort that prompted the University of California’s development of the law in partnership with the state Legislature.

California’s bill, SB 960, which was introduced in February 2022 and signed into law in September 2022, removed a provision in state law that said a person had to be a citizen to be a peace officer and replaced it with a requirement that peace officers be legally authorized to work in the U.S. It took effect on Jan. 1.

Year after year, Farrow said he has encountered students through his work with the UC Davis Cadet Academy — a popular nonaccredited course offered once a year to those interested in a law enforcement career — who excelled in the program and wanted to be peace officers but were "prohibited because of a law in California that was enacted, some 50, 60 years ago."

He petitioned his bosses at the university to take up the issue and to bring it to the attention of state Sen. Nancy Skinner, a Democrat who sponsored the bill. Farrow said he testified in support of the bill before the state Senate and Assembly.

Skinner and Farrow both said that most lawmakers had been unaware of the decades-old provision before its removal. One of the biggest hesitations expressed by those who opposed the measure was over vetting the backgrounds of noncitizens, Farrow said, which he believed was a reasonable concern.

“We responded, basically, 'Yeah, that’s an issue,’” Farrow said. “And if we can’t prove identity and we can’t prove background and we don’t have enough information to make sure that the people that we’re hiring are people that would be good representatives of law enforcement, then they don’t get hired, just like anybody else.”

Like Farrow and others who publicly supported these laws, Staci Shaffer, a lieutenant with the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office in Colorado, said these measures didn't water down the requirements or lower the standards for employment. Qualified applicants must still undergo medical and psychological exams, pass fitness tests and attend the academy, in addition to satisfying other criteria.

Shaffer, who testified before Colorado lawmakers, said that she believed it was "draconian" to turn away a noncitizen authorized to work in the country who was otherwise qualified.

"Law enforcement, in my mind, we have a reputation problem," she said. "There's a reputation because of the actions of some officers." Shaffer said she would tell critics of these laws to "get over it." She said she suspected many law enforcement departments, including the Larimer County Sheriff's Office, which is majority white and majority male and has 68 open positions over several departments, could stand to diversify its ranks to better serve its communities.

DeLacy Davis, a retired police officer in New Jersey and a community policing expert, said he believes some of the opposition to these measures "is grounded in straight racism, no chaser. Period."

"I don’t think that we can draw clear lines in the sand and determine, 'Oh, you’re not a citizen, you can’t be qualified. You are a citizen, you must be a good person,'" he said. "The people who killed Breonna Taylor, the people who killed Tyre Nichols, the people who killed George Floyd, all of those were American citizens. I believe, in and of itself, that is a flawed argument — when we talk about citizenship as a basis for determining whether or not you can or cannot effectively police."

Laurence Benenson, vice president of policy and advocacy at the National Immigration Forum, said the organization had fought for the passage of such laws for years. Benenson said staffing issues predate the pandemic, and that police departments across the country have faced difficulties in hiring qualified candidates for at least a decade, and, in some cases, in recruiting younger officers.

“We believe that hiring lawful permanent residents and Dreamers who work in law enforcement jobs is a common sense idea," and that offering these opportunities to people who "already are contributing in a number of other areas" will expand the pool of qualified applicants for law enforcement jobs, he said. "And then we’ll also have an additional benefit of helping those law enforcement agencies better reach communities that they work with, particularly in jurisdictions that have significant immigrant populations."

Mendoza-Almendarez agreed, saying that hiring DACA beneficiaries is a way for law enforcement agencies to put more “well rounded” officers on the force and to make inroads with immigrants.

“I think that’s one step in helping to increase trust with our undocumented community,” he said.

Farrow said his department is fully staffed and that he has recruited one DACA recipient under the new law.

“I think as time goes on, and more and more chiefs and communities understand that this law is there, and here’s the process to do it, I think it’s going to grow,” he said.

Acevedo said the Aurora Police Department was actively recruiting those now eligible for employment under the new law and that the first thing he did when the legislation passed was promote it on a local Spanish-language news station.

“We have started educating the community and we’re hopeful that we will end up getting good candidates,” he said.

Mendoza-Almendarez is among the first people Acevedo hopes to recruit. The two met when Mendoza-Almendarez was a teenager in the Austin Police Department's explorer program and remained friends.

The new opportunity is one he and other DACA recipients welcome, Mendoza-Almendarez said.

“If these people are willing to do so, why are we not allowing people to do that?”

The pandemic relief was the biggest bailout in history, and it opened the door to wide-scale fraud the likes of which no one had ever seen — more than three years later, we still don’t know h…

The guitarist, who is British, previously railed against COVID-19 vaccine mandates on a podcast with the U.S. presidential candidate and conspiracy theorist.

Anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist and Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made another eye-popping statement this week, and this time it was about the origins of the novel coronavirus.The New York Post reports that Kennedy floated his new conspiracy theory about COVID-19 during a ...

Full article text:

---

A federal judge has ruled Oregon’s voter-approved gun control measure – one of the toughest in the nation – is constitutional.

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut ruled that banning large capacity magazines and requiring a permit to purchase a gun falls in line with “the nation’s history and tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety," Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.

The decision comes after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment that has upended gun laws across the country, dividing judges and sowing confusion over what firearm restrictions can remain on the books. It changed the test that lower courts had long used for evaluating challenges to firearm restrictions, telling judges that gun laws must be consistent with the “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Oregon voters in November narrowly passed Measure 114, which requires residents to undergo safety training and a background check to obtain a permit to buy a gun.

The legislation also bans the sale, transfer or import of gun magazines with more than 10 rounds unless they are owned by law enforcement or a military member or were owned before the measure’s passage. Those who already own high-capacity magazines can only possess them at home or use them at a firing range, in shooting competitions or for hunting as allowed by state law after the measure takes effect.

Large capacity magazines “are not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment,” Immergut wrote. “The Second Amendment also allows governments to ensure that only law-abiding, responsible citizens keep and bear arms.”

The latest ruling in U.S. District Court is likely to be appealed, potentially moving all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Oregon measure’s fate has been carefully watched as one of the first new gun restrictions passed since the Supreme Court ruling last June.

Full article text:

---

The Florida governor has struggled to break into Trump’s lead and his campaign has been burning through money.

---

Ron DeSantis’ presidential campaign has fired roughly a dozen staffers — and more are expected in the coming weeks as he shakes up his big-money political operations after less than two months on the campaign trail.

Those who were let go were described to NBC News by a source familiar as mid-level staffers across several departments whose departures were related to cutting costs. The exits come after the departures of David Abrams and Tucker Obenshain, veterans of DeSantis’ political orbit, which were first reported by Politico.

Sources involved with the DeSantis campaign say there is an internal assessment among some that they hired too many staffers too early, and despite bringing in $20 million during its first six weeks, it was becoming clear their costs needed to be brought down.

Some in DeSantis’ political orbit are laying the early blame at the feet of campaign manager Generra Peck, who also led DeSantis’ 2022 midterm reelection bid and is in the hot seat right now.

“She should be,” one DeSantis donor said.

“They never should have brought so many people on, the burn rate was way too high,” said one Republican source familiar with the campaign’s thought process. “People warned the campaign manager but she wanted to hear none of it.”

“DeSantis stock isn’t rising,” the donor added. “Twenty percent is not what people signed up for.”

The person noted that DeSantis has a penchant for switching out staff, which means that he has no core team that has worked together before. DeSantis had three different campaign teams for each of his three runs for Congress, and notably had a huge campaign shakeup during his first run for governor in 2018.

"Americans are rallying behind Ron DeSantis and his plan to reverse Joe Biden’s failures and restore sanity to our nation, and his momentum will only continue as voters see more of him in-person, especially in Iowa. Defeating Joe Biden and the $72 million behind him will require a nimble and candidate driven campaign, and we are building a movement to go the distance," DeSantis campaign spokesman Andrew Romeo told NBC News.

DeSantis’ campaign had 92 people listed as being on the payroll for at least some period of time during its first fundraising period, according to campaign finance reports filed Saturday with the Federal Election Commission. It is by far the most of any Republican presidential candidate, and it has left his campaign with huge payroll expenses and, the new filings show, fewer resources than originally thought.

DeSantis has $12 million in the bank, but of that $3 million can be used only during the general election. And about $14 million of his second quarter haul came from donors who gave the maximum legal amount. In other words, roughly two-thirds of his early donors will not be able to give directly to his campaign for the duration of the race.

Never Back Down, the pro-DeSantis super PAC, has said it will spend up to $200 million to boost the governor's White House bid and has a significantly larger staff than the official campaign.

The moment of potential reset comes ahead of a national finance committee meeting for DeSantis' campaign Sunday in Tallahassee, which will bring the campaign’s brain trust together as they try to figure out how to chip into Trump’s massive GOP primary lead.

The event will include a briefing at the campaign’s Tallahassee headquarters followed by a barbecue at the governor’s mansion, according to an invite reviewed by NBC News.

DeSantis has been unable to make up ground against Trump after nearly two months as an official candidate. That stagnation is starting to frustrate some supporters, who want a shakeup of the campaign, which is led day-to-day by Peck and Ryan Tyson, a longtime Republican Florida pollster.

“Yeah, there are people grumbling about it, no doubt,” one DeSantis donor said. “There is an overall sense, including with me, that he just has not ignited the way we thought he would.”

The person said that they think DeSantis’ inner circle underestimated just how hard — and expensive — it would be to break the grip on the Republican base held by Trump, who has a commanding lead and is seen as the overwhelming frontrunner. Even in Florida, a state that re-elected DeSantis by nearly 20 percentage-points just seven months ago, Trump now has his own 20-point lead on DeSantis, according to a Florida Atlantic University poll released last week.

The shake-up could include the reemergence of Phil Cox, the veteran Republican operative who helped run DeSantis' 2022 re-election campaign and served as an adviser to Never Back Down before stepping away from that role in late May.

Cox is in Tallahassee for the national finance meeting, but he does not have a formal role with the campaign, a source familiar told NBC News.

DeSantis has signaled that he is aware his campaign did not start the way he wanted, but her has largely blamed media coverage and other outside factors.

To try and re-center, his campaign is doubling down on the early states, especially Iowa, whose first-in-the-nation nominating contest is now seen as a crucial marker. If DeSantis wins, the field will get smaller and he will get closer to the one-on-one matchup with Trump that he wants. But losing the key state would likely cement Trump's status as the unbeatable frontrunner even further.

That assessment was outlined in a confidential internal memo NBC News obtained Friday outlining the campaign’s strategy to regain its footing. The memo indicated that there would be a heavy focus on early states where, DeSantis advisers think, Trump’s supporters can be won over.

“Early state voters are only softly committed to the candidates they select on a ballot question this far out -- including many Trump supporters,” read the memo. “Our focus group participants in the early states even say they do not plan on making up their mind until they meet the candidates or watch them debate.”

Never Back Down is bolstering those efforts, focusing both on early states and a handful of Super Tuesday states — most notably California — where the group is expected to hire roughly 80 organizers in the near future.

For some supporters, though, there are now three keys to DeSantis remaining viable: Iowa, Iowa, Iowa.

“They need to treat it like it’s all that matters right now,” the DeSantis donor said. “If Trump wins it it is over. It means he needs to be there a lot. He needs to do all the retail politics he can.”

The person said DeSantis’ wife, Casey, is a great asset when doing the sort of retail politicking needed to win Iowa, but DeSantis himself needs to improve.

“He needs to find that gear,” the person said. “He needs to find it fast.”

Mississippi is starting the court-ordered process of letting people cite religious beliefs to seek exemptions from state-mandated vaccinations that children must receive before attending day care or school.

More people died in rural Florida and across the U.S. during the pandemic's first two years than officially reported.

"You know, he was recommended very strongly by Chris Christie, who is, you know, a sad case," Trump said of picking Christopher Wray to lead the FBI.

The amendment to the defense authorization bill would forbid service members from contacting the Military Religious Freedom Foundation or its leadership.

Trump is doing everything he can to stop the investigation into his efforts to overthrow the 2020 election.