Macron Called an Election to Thwart the Far Right. He Resuscitated the Left Instead

When French voters delivered Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally party an overwhelming victory in this month’s European Parliament elections, President Emmanuel Macron took a risky and unexpected gamble. He called a snap election, set to begin this Sunday, in which the French people would be given a choice: replicate the decision made in the European elections and hand the far right the keys to national governance, or help thwart them by backing his centrist Renaissance party, which since 2022 has served in a minority government, instead.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

But Macron failed to anticipate that voters would have a third option. Just days after the contest was announced, the country’s main left-wing parties—among them the center-left Socialists, the Greens, the Communists, and Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s hard-left France Unbowed—announced a new electoral pact. Dubbed the “New Popular Front”—which borrows its name from a short-lived political coalition between Socialists and Communists that emerged in response to the threat of fascism in the 1930s—the four-party alliance has committed to campaign on a common platform with a joint list of candidates. “The arrival of the National Rally in power is no longer inevitable,” the parties said in a joint statement, adding: “Hope is here!”

While Macron’s apparent inability to foresee the formation of this left-wing alliance could prove calamitous for his party’s prospects, it wasn’t without reason. Until recently, the French left was widely regarded as a spent force, fractured between an array of parties with vehement disagreements over issues such as support for Ukraine, the ongoing war in Gaza, and their attitudes toward the E.U. Previous attempts at uniting—most recently for the 2022 parliamentary elections—have largely floundered.

“It’s a ragtag coalition,” Mujtaba Rahman, the managing director for Europe at the Eurasia Group, says of the alliance, whose platform includes a pledge to reverse the unpopular pension reforms pushed through by Macron last year, as well as returning the French retirement age to 60 (down from 64). But there’s strength in numbers. By forming this alliance, the left-wing parties are ensuring that the left-wing share of the votes—which, in total, has been more or less the same in each election since 2017—is no longer divided between different parties. “They’re being very opportunistic,” Rahman says. “It’s very tactical.”

But whether this coalition will be able to overcome its divisions long enough to survive until July 7, let alone to see these pledges through in government, is anyone’s guess. “As they come into contact with reality, it’s entirely conceivable they will disintegrate because they’re incredibly incoherent,” Rahman adds. “But for now, the creation of this bloc has created an alternative for moderate, centrist, left-leaning voters who otherwise would have felt compelled to support Macron to put a brake on Le Pen.”

Read More: How Europe’s Far-Right Parties Are Winning Over Young Voters

Individually, these left-wing parties had little to show for the European elections. But together, they are projected to secure as much as 29.5% of the national vote, according to a recent poll, putting them six points behind Le Pen’s National Rally but, crucially, 10 points ahead of Macron’s centrist alliance, which is currently polling at just 19.5%. This bodes poorly for Macron’s candidates, who will need to be among the top two candidates in the first round of voting on June 30 in order to advance to the decisive runoff on July 7.

“In many constituencies, it’s quite likely that Macronist candidates will not be selected to go to the second round,” says Mathieu Gallard, the research director at the French polling firm Ipsos. He notes, however, that a third-place candidate could scrape through if they are able to secure the support of at least 12.5% of the constituency’s registered voters. “The higher the turnout will be in the first round,” he adds, “the higher the number of three-way contests the second round will have.”

Turnout in legislative elections historically hasn’t been great. During the last one, in 2022, just 47.5% of the French electorate cast a vote for the National Assembly, compared to the 73.6% that did so during the presidential election. Still, Gallard says there’s an expectation that turnout will be higher than previous National Assembly votes, which have historically been eclipsed by the presidential contests preceding them. (Macron, whose term ends in 2027, will not be on the ballot.)

Should Macron’s candidates be squeezed out of the second round, his centrist backers could become the deciding factor—that is, if they choose to vote at all. In such a scenario, “I don’t expect very much that … the Macronist candidate will massively back the left,” Gallard says. “I expect them to divide their vote more or less in half between the two candidates, with many abstaining.”

The stakes of this election—which will decide the next prime minister and, consequently, who will determine domestic policy going forward—couldn’t be higher for everyone involved. “National Rally voters think that for the first time, they have a chance to win power,” Gallard says. “Left-wing voters are very afraid of this possibility and they also think that maybe they can win power. And Macronist voters are very afraid of both possibilities.”

While Macron’s centrist alliance has sought to convince voters that its far-right and left-wing rivals are not to be trusted on key issues such as the economy, recent polls suggest that this argument isn’t cutting through. Indeed, a recent Ipsos poll showed that more voters trust Le Pen’s party on the economy (25%) than the left-wing alliance (22%) or Macron’s centrist alliance (20%)—despite its lack of governing experience or warnings that a far-right government could usher in a Liz Truss-style economic meltdown of the kind seen when the short-lived British prime minister introduced billions of pounds in unfunded tax cuts before ultimately resigning in disgrace.

While Macron has called for rival parties on both sides of the political spectrum to join his own electoral alliance to defeat Le Pen, the prospects of anyone heeding that call is unlikely. Macron, who was already deeply unpopular before the election was called, “has annoyed everyone by calling the snap election,” Rahman says. “I find it hard to believe that the left or the right will want to do Macron a favor and enable him to govern.”

Should this election end in defeat for Renaissance, and in victory for either the New Popular Front or the National Rally, Macron will be forced to serve the remainder of his presidential term in a power-sharing arrangement—an outcome that would almost certainly relegate him to the status of canard boiteux, or lame duck.

As some observers see it, he may already be one. Having secured just 15% of the vote in the European elections, Macron wouldn’t have conceivably been able to continue governing without extreme resistance from rival parties—a reality that would invariably come to bear when the government attempts to pass its next budget in the fall. Should the left or the right emerge victorious after July 7, the next Assembly could be “even more dysfunctional, even more fragmented, even more paralyzed, and even less capable of doing anything than the last,” Rahman predicts. “I think there’s a risk that he is even more of a lame duck than he already was.”

source https://time.com/6991254/macron-bardella-le-pen-far-right-left-election/

How SCOTUS Gave Prosecutors Incredible Power Over Abortion Access

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated federal constitutional protection for abortion with the Dobbs v. Jackson decision and said that it was sending abortion back to state legislatures. But two years later, it is actually the state and local prosecutors who are on the frontlines of the fight for reproductive rights.

Prosecutors are playing a significantly outsized role in the protection of abortion access. Large swaths of the nation’s reproductive landscape rely on the singular views of individual state and local prosecutors. Especially in states where the legal landscape is unclear or changing, elected prosecutors effectively determine when and where abortion is accessible. In some jurisdictions, zealous enforcement of restrictive laws by local prosecutors means that there is little to no available abortion care even in the most dire of circumstances.

Take Texas, where Attorney General Ken Paxton has made clear his view that there should be virtually no exceptions to state abortion bans. In a widely watched case brought by a group of women who had been denied urgently needed abortions, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the doctors lawfully could have provided abortions, but failed to acknowledge the crucial reason they didn’t: The doctors’ credible fear that Paxton, as well as local district attorneys, would prosecute them for exercising their medical judgment and performing an abortion.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Read more: America’s Second Year Post-Roe Will Be Even More Contentious

By contrast, prosecutors who are committed to affirming abortion rights, such as in Arizona, show that access can be maintained, even in the face of restrictive laws. There, the state’s supreme court ruled that a 19th-century criminal ban should go back into effect, but the state attorney general and other local prosecutors blunted the ruling’s impact. The court’s ruling has been delayed and the legislature has intervened, enabling abortion providers to continue their practice. A similar set of circumstances arose in the immediate aftermath of Dobbs in Michigan, where the quick action of state and local prosecutors prevented the reactivation of a criminal abortion ban.

Since Dobbs, nearly 100 prosecutors nationwide have publicly stated they will not use their offices’ resources to prosecute those who seek, provide, or support abortions. They believe their obligation to the health and safety of their communities demands protection of these fundamental rights.

By taking a stand, prosecutors defending the right to abortion are repeatedly targeted by anti-abortion state governors and legislators. In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis suspended Hillsborough County prosecutor Andrew Warren after he shortly after joined a public statement expressing his commitment to protecting reproductive access. Across the country, there have been dozens of actions and new laws aimed at pro-choice prosecutors. In a report Public Rights Project co-authored with the Local Solutions Support Center, we identified 53 attempts to restrict prosecutorial authority in 26 states, with 15 new measures enacted since the start of 2023 alone. Georgia created a new commission to oversee prosecutors and to remove them from office for their failure to prosecute particular crimes. Texas created a new process for individual residents to petition a court to unseat an elected prosecutor. And we know this is far from over; looking forward, these anti-democratic attacks against pro-choice prosecutors will increase in states where state leaders are hostile to abortion rights because they understand the crucial role prosecutors play in a post-Roe America.

Simultaneously, anti-abortion prosecutors are attempting to expand their authority and influence across state lines. Not satisfied with eliminating abortion care in their own states, these prosecutors seek to penalize individuals who travel out of state for care, organizations that fund or support such efforts, and providers who offer care to these patients. These efforts are likely to accelerate as tens of thousands of pregnant people travel out of state to receive abortion care.

Moreover, prosecutors have seen how the mere threat of enforcement can deter the provision of care. Given their significant influence, and the growing scrutiny to doggedly enforce abortion laws or face consequences, it is a near certainty that anti-abortion prosecutors will continue to find weaknesses in the system and exploit them, particularly when court intervention is unlikely.

Regardless of the outcome of the presidential election—which will have a profound impact on abortion because of, among other things, the importance of control of the FDA—anti-abortion forces are looking past state legislatures and toward local prosecutors to influence access nationwide, including in haven states, where abortion is protected. Creating confusion and fear that delays or eliminates care altogether is all part of their strategy.

The escalation of these trends in the abortion landscape indicates that prosecutors will remain an outsized force post-Dobbs for years to come. That is why we need to start treating prosecutors like the bellwether force they are for abortion rights.

For voters, look closely at your candidates for district attorney and attorney general, and question them about their positions on abortion. Ask your candidates for state legislature whether they will interfere with prosecutors who choose not to criminalize abortion patients and providers. For donors, invest in protecting pro-choice prosecutors both on the ballot and in the courtroom. And for advocates, sound the alarm about the dangers of prosecutors playing doctor when lives are on the line, and stand with those prosecutors who use their power to protect abortion.

source https://time.com/6991206/scotus-abortion-access-prosecutors-power/

I Was Told I Was Too Fat to Freeze My Eggs

My partner and I were about to step into the elevator when a nurse at the fertility clinic came rushing out to stop us. We had just been given the go-ahead and all the prescriptions to begin hormone injections for egg retrieval and freezing and were about to head home to see my mother for Thanksgiving. It had been a tough year. My father had died just the month prior, after a long illness, which turned my attention to the big questions and lent a sense of urgency to preserving my fertility.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“There’s a problem,” the nurse said. “It’s your BMI.”

She looked genuinely sorry as she ushered us back into the office, through the waiting area, and into a small private room. We stood looking at my chart as she underlined numbers. To undergo egg retrieval at their clinic, she explained, you must have a BMI under 45. Mine was 47.

Read More: How Doctors Inadvertently Fat-Shame Kids

I had been attending appointments at this clinic for months. This was the first time I had been weighed, much less told that my weight could be an issue. The nurse apologized but said that the BMI cutoff was a “state law” (this turned out not to be true) and that it was out of her hands, as it was imposed by the hospital where I would actually have the procedure. Couldn’t I go to another hospital? I asked. No, she said, they worked with only one. I explained to the nurse that the insurance covering this procedure, provided through a short-term contract with a university, would end in a matter of weeks; otherwise I was a self-employed novelist. Without coverage, egg freezing can cost $10,000 to $20,000, including the medications. In other words, this was our only shot.

Egg retrieval is tightly timed to your menstrual cycle, so the nurse suggested I lose 12 pounds in a week to achieve a BMI of 45. I asked if she felt this was a safe thing to do. She acknowledged it was not. 

I was soon speaking with the doctor at the practice. She blamed the surgical facility, saying it was their rule, not hers. I told her that imposing BMI cutoffs for access to fertility treatments was discrimination. I explained my insurance time crunch and the fact that I had begun the egg-freezing process more than a year prior but had to switch providers because of fatphobic treatment at the previous clinic. But she already knew about my experience.

Read More: Weight Bias Is a Problem in Health Care. Here’s What Doctors Can Do

At our first consultation, I had told her about the doctor who had met me over Zoom and, based solely on my BMI, with no knowledge of my medical history, A1C level, or physical fitness, recommended that I lose weight before having the egg retrieval because, he said, there could be therapeutic and maternal-fetal challenges associated with trying to conceive. When I asked for scientific evidence of these challenges, he sent me only a pamphlet distributed by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, which seemed to contradict this approach. “Obesity should not be the sole criteria for denying a patient or couple access to infertility treatment,” it said. Also: “Weight loss intervention trials in women with obesity and infertility have not shown an improvement in the outcome of live birth after treatment. However, weight loss may improve the chance of unassisted conception.”

My partner and I are queer. We would not be able to achieve “unassisted conception,” but that fact seemed not to have registered. Then again, perhaps this should not have surprised me. The practice had also misgendered my nonbinary partner, who uses the pronouns they and them, and insisted that they undergo blood testing for STDs despite the fact that they would not be contributing any genetic material to a pregnancy.

My new doctor had assured me that nothing like that would happen at this clinic. Yet, with the clock ticking, she proceeded to make a remark that cut me to my core, as both a fat person and a queer person.

“There are other ways to have a family,” she said. 

Floored and insulted—yes, I am aware of adoption—but also unwilling to give up, I called the surgical facility. They told me that the information the fertility clinic had given me was incorrect. Their BMI cutoff was 50, not 45, meaning I’d just squeaked in under the line. But anyone with a BMI over 40 had to come in for a consultation with the anesthesiologist. This turned out to consist of only two things: A nurse took my height and weight again, which now found that my BMI was 44, not 47. (Who knew why? They didn’t ask me to remove my shoes this time, unlike at the clinic, but as we know, weight fluctuates.) And an anesthesiologist asked me to open my mouth and say ahhh. “It has to do with your airways,” the anesthesiologist told me. “Heavier people tend to have larger tongues.”

Read More: Ozempic Hurts the Fight Against Eating Disorders

It turns out that doctors weren’t concerned about a fat person undergoing the egg retrieval procedure itself but rather potential complications related to the anesthesia that would be used during the surgery. And yet that reasoning deserves scrutiny. The American Society for Anesthesiologists (ASA) states on its website that people who are overweight are more likely to have sleep apnea, a condition that causes us to stop breathing briefly, which can add risk to sedation. But there are no standardized guidelines, leaving doctors, practices, and hospitals to implement their own idiosyncratic BMI cutoffs. I later learned that had I sought fertility treatment at another local hospital I never would have faced these barriers, as it doesn’t apply a BMI cutoff. Meanwhile, in talking to other fat women who have been denied care in other states, I’ve heard about BMI cutoffs as low as 35.

Inconsistencies aside, medical literature suggests that the increased risk may not be all that substantial. According to a 2022 article in the ASA Monitor, outpatient surgery, where the patient is sedated only briefly and discharged the same day, as is the case for egg retrievals, now makes up the majority of surgeries in the U.S. Although obesity has been linked to a higher risk of other medical conditions, the authors write, “it has not been found to be an independent risk factor for perioperative complications.” A study published by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine in 2019 found that patients with a BMI over 40 who were undergoing egg retrieval had greater anesthetic requirements and more frequent minor complications, like needing supplemental oxygen, but “serious complications related to oocyte retrieval are uncommon.” Authors of a 2010 study on fertility treatments and BMI warned about the impact of using this metric as a determining factor for who can and can’t access treatment. “With changing demographics over half the reproductive-age population is overweight or obese,” they wrote. “Restricting fertility treatment on the grounds of BMI would cause stigmatization and lead to inequity, feelings of injustice and social tension.”

Almost 74% of people in the U.S. are considered overweight or obese, meaning a significant portion of the population is affected by BMI cutoffs for fertility treatment. But not all groups are affected equally. About 80% of Black women are overweight or obese, compared to about 64% of non-Hispanic white women. And lesbian and bisexual women are more likely to be overweight or obese than heterosexual women. This makes a strong case that imposing BMI cutoffs also has the effect of being anti-Black and anti-LGBTQ, limiting the reproductive options for certain populations.

Read More: The 5 Words That Help Me Accept My Body

There is also the issue of patient autonomy. Given that the evidence that fat people would experience complications under anesthesia or be unlikely to have a baby through fertility treatment is hardly unequivocal or overwhelming, isn’t it dangerously paternalistic for doctors to restrict what kinds of elective procedures patients can and can’t have? Would we prevent a straight, thin, white couple from doing another expensive round of IVF if they were fully informed that the chances of success were slim and still consented? Further, people with high BMIs undergo surgeries every day for things like broken legs, arterial blockages, and yes, bariatric surgery. Why are we more worried about the safety of fat people under anesthesia when the goal is having a family than when the goal is weight loss? The authors of the 2019 study recommended “the presence of adequate personnel, training, and equipment to perform basic and emergency airway management,” not turning people away and telling them to consider alternatives. Medical procedures, especially ones involving fertility and the emotional desire to have children, rest on a core value of choice. This value is being denied to fat people in America.

In the end, I had my egg-retrieval procedure, which went smoothly and was over in less than 45 minutes. The most significant complication I had was a very dry mouth afterward that prevented me from enjoying my post-surgery bagel with cream cheese. But I am acutely aware every time I think about these events of all the people who are still shut out by BMI cutoffs. The door swung my way this time, but I feel the shadows of all those on the other side. There are undoubtedly people there who long for kids more than I do, and it is deeply unjust that they may be denied access to procedures they desperately want because of a single number that is, at best, of questionable relevance.

I don’t know what, if anything, I’ll do with the eggs. But in a way that’s the point. These procedures exist to give people the opportunity to build a family if and when we so desire. I, and so many other fat people, deserve the same choices as everyone else.

source https://time.com/6983225/egg-freezing-fertility-fat-bmi-weight/

Here’s a Look at Trump’s VP Shortlist and Why Each Contender May Get Picked

NEW YORK — Donald Trump has narrowed his vice presidential shortlist to a handful of contenders as he prepares to announce his pick in the days before — or perhaps even at — next month’s Republican National Convention.

He told reporters Saturday that he already has made his decision and that the person will be in attendance Thursday night in Atlanta at the first debate of the general election campaign against Democratic President Joe Biden.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Trump’s choice would likely become the immediate front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination four years from now if Trump were to win a second term, the constitutional limit. But that No. 2 will be under immense pressure from Trump and his allies to show loyalty at all times.

Trump turned on his first vice president, Mike Pence, after Pence rebuffed his boss’ efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, based on false theories promoted by the then-president after his loss to Biden.

Pence has declined to endorse Trump this time around.

Trump has said his top consideration for a vice president is whether someone is qualified to take over as commander in chief.

But other factors at play: Who can raise money? Who performs well on television? Who will be most effective on the debate stage against Vice President Kamala Harris? Who risks overshadowing Trump, as a lame-duck if he is elected in November, with talk soon of 2028? And who has “the look”?

Trump’s campaign has repeatedly cautioned that anyone “claiming to know who or when President Trump will choose his VP is lying, unless the person is named Donald J. Trump.”

And given Trump’s penchant for unpredictability and drama, the best-laid plans could change.

A look at the top contenders heading into the convention in Milwaukee that will begin July 15.

Doug Burgum

Trump likes rich people. North Dakota’s two-term governor is most definitely rich.

Before his time as governor, Burgum led a software company that was acquired by Microsoft for more than $1 billion. He also has worked in real estate development and venture capital and spent millions on his own White House bid.

Burgum had initially run against Trump for the 2024 nomination, but the little-known governor from a sparsely-populated state gained little traction. When Burgum dropped his bid, he quickly endorsed the former president. Since then, Burgum has become one of Trump’s most visible defenders, appearing frequently on television, joining him at fundraisers, and traveling to New York for Trump’s criminal trial.

But more than that, Trump and Burgum have hit it off personally.

Burgum and his wife, Kathryn, are said to get along especially well with Trump and his team — the kind of rapport that has particular currency in Trump’s orbit. It does not hurt that Trump thinks Burgum looks the part — a “central casting” pick.

Selecting Burgum would, in some ways, echo Pence: a staid, uncontroversial governor with lesser national name recognition. Burgum, 67, would be unlikely to compete with Trump for the spotlight or to immediately overshadow him with 2028 talk.

Burgum also brings money and rich friends to the table.

But does the Republican Party want two older white guys atop the ticket?

JD Vance

Swept to national prominence by his bestselling memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy,” Vance has held office for less than two years. But during his short time in the Senate, the former venture capitalist from Ohio has established himself as one of the fiercest defenders of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” agenda, especially when it comes to foreign policy, trade and immigration.

Despite his early criticism of Trump, Vance has become personally close with the former president and his son Donald Trump Jr., who has talked up the senator. Vance has become a fixture of the conservative media circuit, frequently spars with reporters on Capitol Hill and has appeared with Trump at recent fundraisers and at court.

At 39, Vance, would inject some millennial energy into a race that features an 81-year-old (Biden) and a 78-year-old (Trump) at the top of the major parties’ tickets. And a debate with Harris would certainly be heated.

But will Trump be able to get over Vance’s record of past insults, which he mentions still?

In 2016, Vance was one of Trump’s fiercest critics, casting the then-reality TV star as “a total fraud” and “moral disaster” and calling him “America’s Hitler.”

Vance has said he was proved wrong by Trump’s performance in office and the senator now castigates the liberals who made his book a bestseller as they sought a window into understanding Trumpism.

Marco Rubio

If picking Vance would excite Trump’s base, choosing the Florida senator might expand the ticket’s appeal, particularly among deep-pocketed donors and more establishment-minded and moderate Republicans turned off by Trump’s rhetoric and extremism.

Rubio, once seen as a GOP hotshot, is now a well-respected voice on foreign policy and national security issues in his party. The son of Cuban immigrants, he speaks Spanish and could help Trump win over the Hispanic voters that his campaign is eagerly courting.

Rubio is also seen as a skilled debater who could hold his own against Harris.

Running alongside Trump might once have seemed unlikely possibility, given that the two were bitter rivals in 2016 for the GOP nomination and viciously attacked one another. Trump belittled Rubio as “Little Marco,” mocked him for drinking water during speeches and called him a “nervous basket case,” who was “disgusting.” Rubio said Trump was a “con man” who tried to “swindle” the Republican Party and Rubio tried to question Trump’s manhood.

“You know what they say about men with small hands,” Rubio quipped at one point during that campaign.

But then there is Rubio’s Florida “problem,” as Trump has called it.

The Constitution says two candidates from the same state cannot run as president and vice president, meaning Rubio would need to change his residency — something he is reportedly willing to do.

But does he really want the job? Rubio has been noticeably less present, publicly, than some of the others vying to be Trump’s No. 2 and did not appear with Trump at his criminal trial.

Tim Scott

The only Black Republican in the Senate, the South Carolinian would bring racial and stylistic diversity to the GOP ticket as well as a preacher’s touch. The self-described “born-again believer” often quotes Scripture in political speeches that often reach a crescendo of call-and-response.

Scott and Trump worked closely together while Trump was in the White House on a host of policy issues, including Trump’s tax cuts, opportunity zones, and criminal justice reform legislation.

Though Scott ran against Trump for the nomination this year, the senator largely declined to criticize the former president. After failing to gain traction despite millions spent on his behalf by high-profile donors, Scott endorsed Trump over fellow South Carolinian Nikki Haley, Trump’s U.N. ambassador, and immediately began enthusiastically campaigning across New Hampshire and South Carolina on Trump’s behalf.

He continues to make frequent appearances on television and recently launched a $14 million campaign to win over minority voters in seven key swing states.

Trump has often joked that Scott has made a far better surrogate than he did a candidate.

But that has also raised questions about how Scott might perform on a debate stage with Harris later this year.

Elise Stefanik

The only woman on his shortlist, the New York congresswoman could help Trump win over skeptical college-educated and suburban women who sided with Biden in 2020.

Stefanik was once an aide to former House Speaker Paul Ryan and served in President George W. Bush’s White House, working for two Republicans now shunned by Trump loyalists. But she transformed during Trump’s four years in office into a fully-fledged Trump acolyte.

She defended him vigorously in both of his impeachment trials and railed against his criminal indictments. In 2022, Stefanik was the first member of Republican House leadership to endorse Trump’s campaign, and did so before he had even announced.

She saw her profile rise after her aggressive questioning in December of a trio of university presidents over antisemitism on campus that led to two of their resignations. Trump has repeatedly praised that performance.

Stefanik has spent years ingratiating herself with Trump and positioning herself as one of his most trusted allies and confidantes on Capitol Hill.

But at 39 and a member of the House, does she have enough experience?

Ben Carson

Relationships and trust matter to Trump. Carson, who served as secretary of housing and urban development during Trump’s administration, has developed a strong bond with the former president over the years, despite a contentious start as 2016 rivals.

A soft-spoken former renowned neurosurgeon, Carson, 72, could help Trump win over minority voters as the first Black person to be named to a Republican presidential ticket. Given Carson’s age and demeanor, there is little chance of him overshadowing Trump or stealing the spotlight.

But Carson also has a history of controversial comments on abortion, guns and other issues that could cause headaches for the ticket.

Byron Donalds

The Florida congressman has become one of Trump’s most prominent conservative Black supporters and a reliable surrogate on television and at events.

His selection could help bolster Trump’s appeal with Black voters, especially the younger Black men that the campaign has been courting as it tries to eat into Biden’s 2020 coalition.

At 45, Donalds is also the kind of fresh face who would serve a marked contrast to the men at the top of both parties’ tickets.

But like Rubio, Donalds would likely need to move to join the ticket. And he, too, has a history of controversial statements, including at a recent “Congress, Cognac, and Cigars” event in Philadelphia, where he seemed to reflect favorably on the Jim Crow era as he talked about “the reinvigoration” of the Black family.

“You see, during Jim Crow, the Black family was together. During Jim Crow, more Black people were not just conservative — Black people always have been conservative-minded — but more Black people voted conservatively,” Donalds said, according to audio from the Philadelphia Inquirer.

source https://time.com/6991051/trump-vp-shortlist-contenders/

Netanyahu Again Claims U.S. is Withholding Arms Shipments, After Washington Denies It

TEL AVIV, Israel — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his Cabinet on Sunday that there had been a “dramatic drop” in U.S. weapons deliveries for Israel’s war effort in Gaza, doubling down on a claim that the Biden administration has denied and underscoring the growing strains between the two allies.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Netanyahu told his Cabinet that the drop had occurred four months ago, without specifying which weapons, saying only that “certain items arrived sporadically but the munitions at large remained behind.”

The spat highlights how high tensions have surged between Israel and Washington over the war in Gaza, particularly surrounding the Israeli military’s conduct in the beleaguered territory and the harm to civilian life there. President Joe Biden has delayed delivering certain heavy bombs since May over those concerns, but his administration fought back last week against Netanyahu’s charges that other shipments had also been affected.

Netanyahu told the Cabinet that he was driven to release a video in English last week after weeks of unsuccessful pleas with American officials to speed up deliveries. He said a resolution appeared close.

“In light of what I have heard over the past day, I hope and believe that this matter will be solved soon,” he said, without elaborating.

Netanyahu’s video last week sparked an uproar among critics in Israel and was met with denial and confusion from White House officials. White House national security spokesman John Kirby said the U.S. was “perplexed” by Netanyahu’s claims. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said, “We genuinely do not know what he’s talking about.”

A White House official on Sunday said the administration has repeatedly stated its position on the matter, and declined to respond to Netanyahu’s comments. The official, who requested anonymity to discuss a diplomatic issue, said U.S. officials were looking forward to “constructive consultations” this week in Washington with Israel’s visiting defense minister, Yoav Gallant.

Gallant, a rival of Netanyahu’s inside the ruling Likud party, was traveling to Washington on Sunday. His office said he would discuss “maintaining Israel’s qualitative edge in the region” but made no mention of the weapons issue.

The war in Gaza, which was sparked by Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on southern Israel, has tested the U.S.-Israel relationship like never before. While the U.S. has staunchly supported Israel’s aims of freeing hostages taken into Gaza and defeating Hamas, it has grown increasingly concerned over the rising Palestinian death toll and the humanitarian crisis created by the war.

Biden has felt pressure from progressive Democrats to take a tougher line against Israel, and he has sharpened his warnings to Netanyahu over military tactics in the Gaza Strip. But after threatening to impose a more sweeping ban on arms transfers over an assault on Rafah, the administration has avoided any suggestion that Israel’s expanding push into the southern Gaza city has crossed a red line.

During an election year, Biden is also facing critics on the right who say he has moderated his support for an essential Mideast ally.

For Netanyahu, the growing daylight with the U.S. also poses political risks and opportunities. His critics see the public spats as the result of a leader prepared to wreck important alliances and tarnish Israel’s image in the world for political gain.

But the rift grants the long-serving leader a chance to show his base that he isn’t beholden to the U.S. and that he is putting Israel’s interests first.

source https://time.com/6991042/netanyahu-claims-us-withholding-israel-arms-shipments-washington-denies/

U.K. Election Betting Scandal Grows as Fourth Conservative Party Official Reportedly Investigated

LONDON — The chief data officer of Britain’s Conservative Party has taken a leave of absence, British media reported Sunday, following growing allegations that the governing party’s members used inside information to bet on the date of Britain’s July 4 national election before it was announced.

The Sunday Times and others reported that Nick Mason is the fourth Conservative official to be investigated by the U.K.’s Gambling Commission for allegedly betting on the timing of the election.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The Times alleged that dozens of bets had been placed with potential winnings worth thousands of pounds.

The reports came after revelations in recent days that two Conservative election candidates, Laura Saunders and Craig Williams, are under investigation by the gambling watchdog. Saunders’ husband Tony Lee, the Conservative director of campaigning, has also taken a leave of absence following allegations he was also investigated over alleged betting.

Police said one of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak ‘s police bodyguards was arrested Monday on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The arrest came after the gambling regulator confirmed it was investigating “the possibility of offences concerning the date of the election.”

The growing scandal, just two weeks ahead of the national election, has dealt a fresh blow to Sunak’s Conservative Party, which is widely expected to lose to the opposition Labour Party after 14 years in power.

Sunak said this week that he was “incredibly angry” to learn of the allegations and said that anyone found to have broken the law should be expelled from his party.

Sunak announced on May 22 that parliamentary elections would be held on July 4. The date had been a closely guarded secret and many were taken by surprise because a vote had been expected in the fall.

Saunders, a candidate standing in Bristol, southwest England, has said she will cooperate fully with the investigation.

Williams was Sunak’s parliamentary private secretary as well as a member of Parliament running for reelection on July 4. He has acknowledged that he was being investigated by the Gambling Commission for placing a 100-pound ($128) bet on a July election before the date had been announced.

Senior Conservative minister Michael Gove condemned the alleged betting and likened it to “ Partygate,” the ethics scandal that contributed to former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s ouster in 2022.

That controversy saw public trust in the Conservatives plummet after revelations that politicians and officials held lockdown-flouting parties and gatherings in government buildings during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021.

“It looks like one rule for them and one rule for us,” Gove told the Sunday Times. “That’s the most potentially damaging thing.”

Daisy Cooper, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, said “people are sick and tired of this sleaze” and that Sunak must intervene and order an official inquiry.

The Conservative Party said it cannot comment because investigations are ongoing.

source https://time.com/6991032/uk-election-betting-scandal-conservative-officials-investigated/

Trump Says He Has Picked His Vice President, But He Has One Key Move Left to Make

Former President and current Republican nominee Donald Trump has stated that he has already decided upon his pick for Vice President in the 2024 election, but there’s still one more thing that he needs to do: tell them.

During Trump’s stop in Philadelphia on his campaign tour on Saturday, NBC News asked if he had decided on a running mate. He responded, “in my mind, yeah,” and added that “nobody knows” who the choice is. Per Trump, whoever it is will “most likely” be at Thursday’s CNN presidential debate in Atlanta, the first against his Democrat opponent President Joe Biden.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“They’ll be there,” he said. “I think we have a lot of people coming.”

In an interview for TIME’s April cover story , the former President claimed that many people have been asking to be his Vice President.

“Everybody wants to work for me. And a lot of people say, ‘Oh, would he work for me? Oh, would he be a Vice President? Would he accept?’ Vice President? I’ve got everybody in the nation calling me begging me to be vice president,” he told TIME.

Read More: Read the Full Transcripts of Donald Trump’s Interviews With TIME

Narrowing down the options, though, potential vice presidential candidates include North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, Ben Carson, and Senators Marco Rubio, Tim Scott, and J.D. Vance. 

In 2016, Trump strategically chose Mike Pence as his running mate—a fiscal and social conservative who comforted the more traditional Republicans and widened Trump’s support base. The question is whether he will use a similar strategy this time around, or double down with his already devoted MAGA base.

Read More: A List of Trump’s Allies Coming to Support Him at His Trial

This is not the first time Trump has enjoyed toying with the media over his VP decision. In January, Trump had a very similar answer for Fox News moderators Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum when they inquired about who he was thinking of choosing to join him.

“I can’t tell you that,” he said at a Fox News Town Hall in Des Moines ahead of the Iowa caucuses. “But I know who it’s going to be.”

According to NBC, Trump’s senior adviser Brian Hughes said that the campaign’s top criterion for selecting a running mate “is a strong leader who will make a great President for eight years after his next four year term concludes.”

Though the running mate could likely be at next week’s presidential debate, Trump has previously said he will announce his pick for Vice President at the Republican National Convention next month, which takes place from July 15 until July 18 in Milwaukee.

source https://time.com/6991007/donald-trump-decides-vice-president-pick-2024-election/