We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks with Judge Amy Coney Barrett after she was sworn in as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, U.S. October 26, 2020.
Supreme Court divided over Trump’s absolute immunity claims
Should a former president be held accountable for crimes committed while in office? That was the basic, yet incredibly weighty, question before the Supreme Court on Thursday when it began hearing oral arguments in a case related to former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
Trump, who doesn’t want to face trial in the federal Jan. 6 case against him before his expected rematch with President Joe Biden on Election Day, has declared that presidents should have absolute immunity. He’s effectively argued that presidents should be above the law.
What happened? Some of the conservative justices (three of whom were appointed by Trump) expressed concern that allowing former presidents to be criminally prosecuted could present a burden to future commanders-in-chief. They seemed skeptical of Trump’s sweeping claims but appeared open to the idea that presidents should have immunity for some actions. There was a great deal of focus on whether a distinction should be established between official acts and private behavior.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, emphasized that the court was “writing a rule for the ages.” But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, another Trump appointee, agreed with the notion that the ex-president’s legal team was pushing a “radical” idea on presidential immunity.
Meanwhile, liberal justices worried that if the court ruled in Trump’s favor, it could open the door for future presidents to commit crimes. “If there’s no threat of criminal prosecution, what prevents the president from just doing whatever he wants?” asked Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
TLDR: The court might rule that presidents should be granted some, but not absolute, immunity from criminal prosecution. This means the case could be kicked back down to the lower courts.
What’s next? Trump’s Jan. 6 trial was postponed to await the court’s ruling, which could come anytime between now and the end of June. Whether that trial occurs before voters go to the polls in November will depend on the timing and nature of the court’s final ruling.
Former US President Donald Trump waits for the start of proceedings in Manhattan criminal court, Tuesday, April 23, 2024, in New York.
Is Trump immune? SCOTUS dives into uncharted waters
The US Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on Thursday over whether former President Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results (spoiler alert: He lost to Joe Biden).
Trump has effectively argued that he should be off the hook for anything he did while in office. The ex-president faces four felony counts in relation to his push to undo Biden’s victory, including conspiracy to defraud the US and obstruction of an official proceeding.
What’s at stake? A lot! This is novel territory for the Supreme Court, given Trump is the first former president in US history to face criminal charges.
The court’s ruling will have major implications for the rule of law in the US and the office of the presidency, with the potential to deal a major blow to the system of checks and balances designed to restrain each branch of the government. That said, legal experts are skeptical the court will fully concur with Trump’s broad assessment that presidents have absolute immunity. Lower courts have already rejected Trump’s immunity claims.
The high court’s decision could also impact whether Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, stands trial in the federal Jan. 6 case in Washington before Election Day – something Trump is eager to avoid. A trial date was originally scheduled for March 4 but was delayed to await the Supreme Court ruling, which is expected to be released by July.
Former President Donald Trump leaves Manhattan Supreme Court on the 6th day of the hush money trial against him on April 23, 2024.
‘Hush money’ trial judge loses patience with Trump lawyer
The judge presiding over Donald Trump’s “hush money” criminal trial heard arguments on Tuesday over allegations that the former president had violated a gag order. Rather than ruling, Judge Juan Merchan delayed his decision.
Prosecutors say Trump has repeatedly violated the order with social media posts criticizing witnesses, court officials, and their families. Trump, for example, has referred to his former lawyer Michael Cohen and porn star Stormy Daniels, key witnesses, as “sleaze bags.”
But defense lawyer Todd Blanche argued that the posts didn’t violate the gag order and that Trump was simply using social media to respond to “political attacks.”
Merchangrew impatient as Blanche struggled to point to specific posts that Trump was reacting to, warning the attorney he was “losing all credibility with the court.”
What’s next? Prosecutors are requesting that Trump be fined $10,000, but Merchan, who didn’t seem convinced by the defense team’s case, postponed his ruling until a later (unspecified) date.
Trump sounds off. After Tuesday’s hearing on the gag order, Trump complained on Truth Social that he was facing a “kangaroo court.” He also said the order was unconstitutional and called for Merchan to recuse himself.
Former President Donald Trump speaks to the media after the first day of opening statements in his trial at Manhattan Criminal Court for falsifying documents related to hush money payments, in New York, NY, on Monday, April 22, 2024.
Trump complains he should be campaigning as ‘hush money’ trial begins
On Monday, the opening statements were delivered in Donald Trump’s historic “hush money” criminal trial in New York City. Trump is accused of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels to protect his 2016 presidential campaign.
What the prosecution said: Prosecutor Matthew Colangelosaid Trump “orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election” and covered it up by “lying in his New York business records” repeatedly.
What Trump’s side said: Trump's attorney Todd Blanchesaid the former president is “innocent.” He also attacked the character of Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal lawyer, who is poised to be a key witness for the prosecution.
First witness takes the stand: David Pecker, the ex-publisher of the National Enquirer, testified briefly on Monday and spoke about using “checkbook journalism” to pay for stories. He’s accused of killing stories that would’ve been damaging to Trump’s 2016 campaign and allegedly helped broker a deal with Daniels. Pecker is set to testify again on Tuesday.
Big picture: Trump is the first former US president to face a criminal trial. Recent polling suggests that if Trump is convicted, it could cost him at the ballot box.
The presumptive GOP presidential nominee complained outside the courtroom that he should be campaigning instead and called the proceedings “election interference.” Trump is expected to be in court for the whole trial, which will be held every weekday except Wednesdays and is expected to last from six to eight weeks. Trump in February said he would face trial during the day, and campaign at night.
What the Trump trial circus is missing
On the first day of the first criminal trial of a former US president, I couldn’t resist. The courthouse is 15 minutes from my desk here in New York, so I jumped on the 6 Train and headed out to the scrum of protesters, counterprotesters, journalists, police, and other gawkers in Lafayette Park outside the courthouse.
There was lots – lots – of yelling. Just as I arrived, a guy in a “Gays for Trump, You got a problem with that, Bitch!” T-shirt was at the center of a smartphone scrum screaming at a woman holding a “Trump is the Definition of Depravity” sign that she was a “pedophile.”
Before long, content creators from both sides of the national divide were on the scene, livestreaming and shouting at each other about Hunter Biden, about inflation, about child labor, about immigration. Even Triumph the Comic Insult Dog barked into the mix, asking one of several Proud Boys stalking the scene in wraparound shades: “If Trump is convicted, do you think he’ll be sentenced to four years … in the White House?”
The only people not screaming, as I recall, were four elderly Chinese-American ladies in huge sunglasses, sitting on a bench under a leafless sweetgum tree, holding hand-painted signs that read: “Kangaroo Court, Banana Republic.”
It was, in all, the usual performative mayhem about the usual subjects. But the one thing that almost no one was actually yelling about was the thing that was going on inside the building 100 feet away: the trial itself.
All that circus, and hardly a word about the elephant in the ring.
But isn’t that how a lot of us talk about Trump’s trials and titillations these days? We argue about the politics rather than look at the merits. And that’s a bad thing.
For Trump, the political cage matches keep the focus right where he wants it: on the narrative that he, as a popular threat to a corrupt establishment, is the victim of a political witch hunt. That the ruling party is using the justice system to silence a political rival. That those ladies with the big sunglasses under the sweetgum tree are right.
On the other side, people talk about the long-coming legal downfall of a demagogue seen as a threat to the Republic itself. The Capone of politics nabbed on his own kind 0f tax rap.
“People know what verdict they want in this case,” says Richard Klein, a professor of law at Touro Law School and a longtime trial criminal defense lawyer. “But few people are focusing on DA Bragg’s case against Trump. They're focusing on all the noise around it.”
To review, briefly. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg alleges that Trump falsified business records to conceal a payment that was made, in the fall of 2016, to a porn star who says she and Trump had a fling.
“Hush money” is bad, but that’s not actually what the trial is about. Paying someone to keep quiet isn’t necessarily a crime, and fiddling with business records in New York isn’t a felony.
Bragg’s case elevates the charges by arguing that this book-cooking was done with the intention of committing other felonious infractions – including, it seems, a conspiracy to influence the outcome of the 2016 election and commit tax fraud.
To prove this intent, Bragg will bring various witnesses, including Trump’s former lawyer and fixer-in-chief Michael Cohen, who made the payments, as well their recipient, the actress known as “Stormy Daniels.”
Legal scholars like Klein say Bragg’s approach is something of a high-wire act. He is linking dozens of lower-level crimes – some of which Trump appears to have admitted publicly – to harder-to-prove felonious ones, and then asking a jury to decide that Trump did all of this to sway an upcoming election rather than, say, simply to save his marriage or protect his kids from scandal.
The key witnesses, moreover, aren’t exactly folks with an unblemished reputation for truthtelling. Cohen has already admitted to lying under oath previously.
How much does this matter? If Bragg fails to convince the jury, Trump will be vindicated – look, he’ll say, these kangaroo court prosecutors came at me and 12 very good people of New York saw through it. This will color the politics of the other three cases he faces.
If Trump is convicted, of course, it may not move the needle for the 35% of “you got a problem with that bitch!”Americans who are unwaveringly fanatically loyal to him.
But about half of Americans say if Trump is convicted he should not be president again. That includes 14% of Republicans and, perhaps more importantly, a third of independents who say a guilty verdict would sway their vote. In a tight election – and this one will be tight – that could certainly be the difference.
As I went to file this, news broke that the jury has been set for the trial. And so we’re off. I may not be able to resist heading down to Lafayette square for some good mayhem again in the coming weeks – but as a society it’s a mistake to let that political circus distract us from the real drama in the courtroom itself.
Totality fails to eclipse politics
The moon blotted out the sun across much of North America on Monday, but it did not put politics entirely out of mind.
Conservatives on both sides of the border used the occasion to compare their champion to the moon, blotting out the incumbent sun, while incumbents merely marveled at the moment.
In the United States, Donald Trump released an odd ad on his Truth Social network in which his face blotted out the sun. In Canada, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre just posted a photo of the moment, but one of his MPs posted an image showing a smiling Poilievre eclipsing Trudeau.
Meanwhile, Fox News issued a warning that the eclipse might make it easier for migrants to cross into the United States.
Justin Trudeau posted a video of himself taking in the sight from the roof of his office while Joe Biden posted a safety warning, a subtle reminder, perhaps, of the time, in 2017, when Trump gazed directly into an eclipse, which is said to be unwise.Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump gives a statement on abortion policy, in this screengrab obtained from a video released on April 8, 2024.
Trump embraces status-quo on abortion
Trump’s status-quo position is unlikely to appease the pro-lifers in his party who want national restrictions. But the former president is betting that his appointment of the three justices who overturned the constitutional right to an abortion is enough to keep them on his side.
Reactions from pro-life groups have been mixed. The president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Marjorie Dannenfelser, said the organization was “deeply disappointed.” Students for Life of Action, meanwhile, made it clear they’re sticking by Trump but hoping he pursues a more restrictive approach to abortion in the future.
Trump’s move is unlikely to quell the Democratic Party’s advantage from high turnout in states where abortion is on the ballot. The left’s strategy is to amplify stories of women who have been harmed by Republican abortion policies, with the Biden campaign releasing an emotional video testimony hours after Trump’s announcement dropped.
President Joe Biden, meanwhile, accused Trump of sowing “cruelty” and “chaos” around the abortion debate because of his role in the Dobbs decision.
Abortion referendums will be on the ballot in at least a few swing states – Florida is confirmed, and Arizona and Nevada are likely – creating a massive weakness for Republicans that Trump’s call for abortion to be left to the states will do nothing to mitigate.Soldiers of the seven newest NATO members parade during a ceremony marking the expansion of NATO's membership from 19 countries to 26 at the alliance headquarters in Brussels April 2, 2004. NATO foreign ministers participated in an event marking the formal accession of the seven newest members, Bulgaria, Estonia Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slonevia.
NATO turns 75. Will it make it to 80?
Seventy-five years ago today, 12 leaders from the US, Canada, and Western Europe signed the North Atlantic Treaty, creating the world’s most powerful military alliance: NATO
Where it’s been: As World War II drew to a close in 1945, Europe faced the overwhelming challenge of reconstruction. Over 11 million displaced people were wandering the bombed-out cities and scorched countryside, including hundreds of thousands of war orphans. And on the east bank of the Elbe River stood the massive, battle-hardened Soviet Red Army, a worrying prospect as the USSR came increasingly into conflict with its erstwhile allies.
Just 18 months later, Britain and France signed the Treaty of Dunkirk, pledging mutual defense as world powers rapidly coalesced into ideological blocs. Following a Soviet-backed communist coup in Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands joined to create the Western Union in March 1948, but within months, the Soviet blockade of West Berlin would make clear only US involvement could deter Moscow.
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States signed the North Atlantic Treaty just over a year hence, binding one another to mutual defense.
Five months later, the USSR tested its first nuclear bomb.
Identity crisis: Through the Cold War, NATO had a clear mission to deter the Soviet Bloc. But as the Warsaw Pact and then the Soviet Union itself collapsed in 1991, what would become of the alliance?
Instead of guarding against Eastern Europe, NATO began absorbing former Soviet bloc countries and protecting the liberal democratic order more generally. In March 1999, the alliance welcomed Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary — and initiated a bombing campaign that ended the Serbian invasion of Kosovo.
Then, in 2001, the alliance’s mutual defense clause was invoked for the first time in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the US, leading to the multilateral International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. By 2004, another seven former Soviet and Warsaw Pact countries had joined.
But Moscow’s sudden invasion of Georgia in 2008, just months after the small Caucasian nation voted overwhelmingly to start NATO accession talks, raised the specter of a renewed Cold War. Russia’s annexation of Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine in 2014 restored focus on the old enemy.
Future peril. Today, NATO has expanded to 32 countries with over 3.3 million active troops, 1 million armored vehicles, 20,000 aircraft, and 2,100 warships, all backed by the US, French, and British nuclear arsenals — without question the most powerful military force ever assembled.
Yet despite its strength, the alliance is beset by anxiety over its future. Should Donald Trump win reelection in November, planners from Ottawa to Ankara worry he will hollow out the alliance’s core and expose members to Russian predation while abandoning Ukraine to the cruel fate of partition, or worse.
The upside? Europeans are starting to get more serious about protecting themselves. The invasion of Ukraine spurred a 13% increase in defense spending in Europe 2022, and Sweden and Finland, both of which punch above their weight militarily, to join NATO. Most pressingly, NATO is working on a $100 billion fund to keep Ukraine in the fight — money Trump 2.0 couldn’t touch.