The New York Times

[Jack]

 

Often referred to as 'the paper of record', the New York Times provides trusted coverage of domestic news across the United States.

[Blakesley]

Brave New World - Challenges Abroad for the de la Cruz Administration

Part 1 - The Nuclear Impasses

 

The following is part one of a three part series on foreign policy challenges facing the next administration. The first installment of this series will focus on nuclear challenges, namely the Iran Deal and a proliferation in the Middle East and the expansion of North Korea's nuclear program. The second installment of this series will focus on great power competition, namely the rise of China and the the resurgence of Russia, and diplomatic challenges, such as shifting U.S. policy towards Cuba. The third installment of this series will focus on hot conflicts that the United States finds itself involved in: namely the war in Afghanistan, the campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and counterterrorism operations in Africa. While not a comprehensive look at foreign policy challenges, this review will cover major foreign policy challenges facing President-elect de la Cruz as she prepares to take office.

 

The Iran Deal

 

No foreign policy issue inspired as strong a debate as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the JCPOA), also known as the Iran deal. Announced in 2015, the Iran deal seeks to prevent the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon over the next 15 years. The core of the agreement includes what are described as “highly verifiable” benchmarks on nuclear enrichment capability and a robust inspection regime. Nuclear security experts described the technical annexes of the agreement as “as close to airtight as a nuclear agreement can be”.

 

Critique of the agreement centered on numerous points. First, Israel is adamantly opposed to the agreement, based on the reduction of sanctions and the eventual possibility of an Iranian weapon. An Iran expert noted that “the crux of the agreement is in ‘strategic patience’, the idea that in fifteen years, as Iran’s younger generation matures, the nation will be less radical and less inclined to pursue nuclear weapons. A more potent critique is that the agreement solely addresses Irans nuclear and ballistic weapon capabilities, leaving out their other malign activities, including support for militia and terror groups.

 

As an executive agreement, the fate of the Iran deal is largely in the hands of the next President. The options are, essentially, a binary: keep it or ditch it. Proponents within the Obama administration point out that reopening the agreement is unlikely to yield a stronger agreement. “Iran’s leadership is deeply unhappy with the agreement and its implementation, but they’re not willing to contest it because they see some benefits,” said one official. Iran is viewed as unlikely to reopen the agreement to further negotiation.

 

A barrier to action may be that the P5+1 nations that negotiated the agreement (the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany) are unlikely to back reopening the agreement. “The United States can collapse the agreement, essentially, by itself. But it cannot reopen the agreement without the Europeans, the Chinese, the Russians, and the Iranians themselves. And those nations are quite happy with the agreement as it currently is.”

 

Of course, terminating the agreement by itself poses risks. While the International Atomic Energy Agency, supported by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), assess that Iran currently has a year plus breakout time following the transfer of nuclear fuel and disabling of a reactor and several centrifuges, they retain critical knowledge. “In the absence of the agreement and verification steps, Iran’s path to a nuclear device is easier. Though it is unlikely they’d make a mad dash for a bomb,” commented an NNSA official. Sources within the Intelligence Community emphasize that “Iran is unlikely to be able to covertly enrich uranium to weapons grade. We’ll know whether they’re doing it no matter what. The question will be how far along are they.”

 

Nuclear North Korea

 

North Korea poses a different set of issues from Iran. A far more insulated and isolated society, intelligence penetration of North Korea’s nuclear program is next to impossible. “We have known unknowns in North Korea,” said a former intelligence official. “We know they have secret enrichment facilities beyond Yongbyon, but we have no idea where they are.” The results of those enrichment activities are concerning: the next President could be facing a North Korea with 20-50 nuclear weapons, despite the crippling sanctions that the country currently faces. North Korea leverages several tools and techniques to avoid sanctions.

 

The question facing the next President will be how to confront the North Korea challenge. At the moment, North Korea appears to lack a intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the continental United States, though this remains unconfirmed. The Hwasong-13 (KN-08) potentially poses a threat to the West Coast, though nonproliferation experts currently dispute the accuracy of that claim. “It’s likely not the best missile,” said one. “And even if it could reach the West Coast, it would likely be at the cost of accuracy, leading to an inability to effectively target population centers or military targets.”

 

The Six Party Talks, discontinued in 2009, were once seen as the primary forum via which an agreement on North Korea’s nuclear program would be achieved. While various parties have stated openness to resuming talks, it remains unclear whether this will be achieved or what the goals of such talks will be. “North Korea looked around and saw what happened to leaders that gave up their nuclear programs. The Kim regime won’t go the same way as Gaddafi or Hussein. More importantly, he already has nuclear weapons.” The key component of talks will be reaching agreement, not with North Korea, but with China in the views of some Asia watchers.

 

Alternatively, the United States and its allies could increase pressure on the rogue state. “There is room for tough enforcement of sanctions, a stronger military presence, and so on,” said a North Korea expert at The Heritage Foundation. “Considering their provocations in the Yellow Sea and elsewhere, a more muscular posture shouldn’t be ruled out. That includes both economic and military power.” Some in South Korea and Japan would welcome more robust United States security engagement in the region.

 

“Ultimately, North Korea policy will depend on what the administration wants to get out of it,” said a bleary eyed fellow from The Asia Society. "The United States will have to outline clear goalposts that they want to achieve and then set out to achieve them. Is a nuclear North Korea an acceptable outcome? What limits need to be imposed? Those are the questions that the de la Cruz administration will have to wrestle with."

 

The Proliferation Paradox

 

One of the major concerns resulting from the nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea is the threat that other, more capable nations may seek nuclear weapons in the future. The states that could seek nuclear weapons, under these circumstances, include nations such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East and Japan and South Korea in East Asia. "These are countries that absolutely have the technical capability," said a NNSA analyst. "Whether or not they choose to act is another question." Another source noted that, "It's more or less an open secret that Saudi Arabia will receive nuclear weapons from Pakistan the moment that they request them, which may be sooner rather than later if Iran makes meaningful progress towards a nuclear weapon."

At any rate, it is clear that President de la Cruz will face nuclear challenges as her administration prepares to take office, something that they must prepare for.

[Blakesley]

Brave New World - Challenges Abroad for the de la Cruz Administration

Part 2 - The Great Power Conflicts

 

The following is part two of a three part series on foreign policy challenges facing the next administration. The first installment of this series focused on nuclear challenges, namely the Iran Deal and a proliferation in the Middle East and the expansion of North Korea's nuclear program. This second installment of this series focuses on great power competition, namely the rise of China and the the resurgence of Russia, and diplomatic and development challenges, such as shifting U.S. policy towards Cuba. The third installment of this series will focus on hot conflicts that the United States finds itself involved in: namely the war in Afghanistan, the campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and counterterrorism operations in Africa. While not a comprehensive look at foreign policy challenges, this review will cover major foreign policy challenges facing President-elect de la Cruz as she prepares to take office.
 

Russia, NATO, and Europe

 

Across both parties there is generally a distrust of Russia - the question is largely one of how to prioritize the troublesome state. For some, particularly in the Republican Party, China is the defining challenge of the time and Russia is just a distraction - a declining power acting out. Others view Russia with suspicion and emphasize the need for greater cooperation with our European allies, namely NATO. A minority view promotes closer ties with Russia and a potential end to the sanctions imposed following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

 

Geopolitically, the most significant issue straining the U.S.-Russia relationship is the invasion of Ukraine. With Crimea essentially being Russian territory and frozen conflicts on the Donbas. This conflict, per Putin, is rooted in the need to “protect Russian speaking peoples” who are having their rights denied by Western leaning governments. Moreover, it utilizes hybrid warfare that defies traditional lines of armed conflict and requires altered responses. The de la Cruz administration must decide whether to maintain, escalate, or relax sanctions against Russia in response to its actions in Ukraine, as well as make decisions on American aid to Ukraine. These decisions will signal the U.S.'s commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, and will also affect transatlantic unity on the issue.

 

Additionally, the conflict in Syria highlights another flashpoint in the U.S.-Russia relationship. Crafting a coherent strategy for Syria, where U.S. and Russian interests collide, will be crucial. The administration will need to balance the fight against ISIS, support for opposition groups, and the humanitarian crisis, with the reality of Russia's influence over the conflict's outcome.

 

With respect to NATO, the President de la Cruz will need to navigate questions about the future of the alliance moving forward. Ukraine and Georgia continue to seek membership, though there is limited movement on granting them that membership. NATO’s eastern flank, anchored by the Baltic nations, remains a source of concern for planners in the alliance. There remain tensions that NATO might need to focus on in the Balkans. Despite a push by the Obama administration, many NATO members still do not meet the spending requirement of 2% of GDP going towards national defense. Bringing NATO into the future is a challenge that will face the next President.

 

The other points of tension aside, President de la Cruz will face one necessary form of engagement with Russia. With the New START Treaty set to expire in January 2021, a replacement will have to be negotiated during the next four years. New START remains the primary treaty governing the reduction of strategic nuclear weapons between the world’s two largest nuclear powers.

 

The China Challenge

 

As noted above, to some the China challenge is the defining challenge of the 21st century. Over the past eight years the Obama administration, in recognition of this challenge, established a strategic and economic dialogue with China and began to implement the “pivot to Asia” (successfully or unsuccessfully, depending on whom you ask). At its heart, U.S. policy towards China remains anchored upon the “Three Communiques” of 1972, 1978, and 1982, as well as the Taiwan Relations Act.

 

China has undoubtedly been growing as a force on the world stage. It is the largest trading partner of an alarming number of nations. Its Belt and Road Initiative, a $1 trillion development project, is set to dramatically extend its reach in the developing world. Politicians of both parties decry China for undermining manufacturing jobs in America’s industrial heartland and the allegations of currency manipulation leveled at the Chinese government. In light of these accusations, trade and economic tensions have been at the forefront of the bilateral relationship. The challenge for the next administration lies in negotiating trade agreements that promote fair competition while avoiding a trade war that could have detrimental effects on both economies.

 

Beyond economic flashpoints, growing assertiveness in the South and East China Seas threatens freedom of navigation and challenges the territorial claims of U.S. allies, such as the Philippines and Japan. China's militarization of disputed islands and assertive maritime claims have alarmed neighboring countries and the U.S., which advocates for freedom of navigation and the peaceful resolution of disputes. A potential repeat of the Taiwan Strait Crisis of 1996, though not likely, remains a potential military flashpoint between the U.S. and China. The Taiwan question is particularly potent, with increased agitation on the island for formal independence, which would draw the United States’ support of the One China policy into question. China continues to oppose the United States’ arms sales to Taiwan.

 

That said, China remains a key partner on a wide variety of issues facing the United States. Both the United States and China are concerned about North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, though differences in approach have complicated cooperation. American officials have urged China to use its influence and economic leverage over Pyongyang to curb its nuclear program, while China advocates for dialogue and a less confrontational approach. Forging agreement between the United States and China will likely be critical to solving the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula. Moreover, both China and the United States are leaders on climate and environmental issues, with both countries playing pivotal roles in the Paris Agreement. Continuing to engage China in global environmental initiatives and clean energy development will be vital for addressing the global climate crisis.

 

Engaging the Developing World

 

Outside of the return of great power conflict, the United States faces a web of diplomatic challenges across Africa and the Americas that will test the strategic acumen of the incoming administration. From navigating political instability and economic uncertainty to addressing security concerns and fostering development, the geopolitical landscape presents a multifaceted puzzle for U.S. foreign policy.

 

In Africa, the U.S. confronts a continent of vast diversity and complexity. One of the paramount challenges is the ongoing threat of terrorism, with groups like Boko Haram in Nigeria and al-Shabaab in Somalia undermining regional stability and security. The U.S. has engaged in counterterrorism efforts, including military support and training for local forces, but the persistent instability calls for a more comprehensive strategy that also addresses the underlying socio-economic drivers of extremism.

 

Another pressing issue is the political turmoil and humanitarian crises in countries such as South Sudan and the Central African Republic. The U.S. must balance its diplomatic efforts to promote peace and democracy with the imperative to aid in humanitarian relief. Moreover, the burgeoning youth population across the continent, coupled with economic stagnation and unemployment, underscores the necessity for U.S. engagement in economic development and education initiatives.

 

In the Americas, the U.S. faces the challenge of bolstering deteriorating democracies and backsliding human rights conditions in countries like Venezuela and Nicaragua. The crisis in Venezuela, marked by political repression, economic collapse, and massive migration, requires a delicate approach that supports the Venezuelan people without exacerbating the situation. The instability in the “Northern Triangle” and Venezuela present security and migration concerns, with drug trafficking and gang violence directly impacting the United States and requiring a comprehensive strategy to confront.

 

The U.S. faces shifting dynamics in the political realignment of the region with shifts in power that could play a role in future engagement. The election of right-wing leader and daughter of a former dictator Keiko Fujimori in Peru marks a strong right-wing lurch towards possible authoritarianism, despite claims against such by Fujimori's new government. Haiti also makes a major shift as former ousted Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide's Fanmi Lavalas party is swept into power with Dr. Maryse Narcisse elected as the next President. Aristide himself, a fierce critic of the United States and France with whom he alleges conspired to remove him from power in the early 2000s, has been elevated to Haitian Foreign Minister within the new government and has already adopted a more hostile approach to the West.

 

Additionally, the U.S. must navigate its relationship with Cuba following the historic thawing of relations under the Obama administration. The next steps in diplomatic and economic engagement with Havana will significantly impact the broader U.S.-Latin America relations and the promotion of democracy and human rights in the region. Faced with potential opposition in Congress, the de la Cruz administration will need to determine a path forward on the relationship with Cuba should it choose to continue the thaw brought forward by the Obama administration.
 

[Blakesley]

The Watford Nomination: A Litmus Test for a Divided Senate

In a move that resurrects both old battles and high hopes, President de la Cruz, following her 2016 victory, renominated 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Paul Watford to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. This decision not only revives a nomination initially put forth by Barack Obama but also tests the current political landscape's capacity for bipartisan agreement.

 

Judge Watford, historically popular among judicial observers for his jurisprudence, once again finds himself at the epicenter of a heated political skirmish. His nomination in 2016 was met with considerable acclaim in legal circles for his moderate record and judicial temperament. However, it also ignited a partisan standoff that underscores the ever-polarizing nature of Supreme Court nominations, with then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell enforcing the "Biden rule" to say that the next President should choose the next Supreme Court justice. With the election resolved, Judge Watford was renominated and his nomination remains held up in the Senate.

 

As Watford's nomination is debated in the Senate, Republican leadership has ramped up efforts to solidify opposition among its ranks. The intensity of these efforts suggests a strategy not just of opposition but of outright blockade, with Republican leaders pressuring members to block cloture - a procedural action necessary to end debate and move forward to a vote. This effort led to significant pressure being placed on wavering Senate Republican centrists. This firm stance is likely to boost opposition amongst right-leaning voters, for whom judicial appointments remain a cornerstone issue and Watford (and likely any Democratic pick) is to be unacceptable. The narrative constructed by Republicans paints Watford as an ideological threat, specifically suggesting that his moderate record is not actually moderate, aiming to galvanize a base that has historically prioritized the composition of the Supreme Court.

 

On the other side of the aisle, Democrats, buoyed by their electoral success, have initially leaned on the mandate they believe their victory imparts. "We won the election," has been a common refrain aimed at justifying their entitlement to appoint Supreme Court justices of their choosing. However, this argument carries limited weight in the face of continued partisan divisions and does little to address substantive questions about Watford's qualifications and potential impact on the Court. Recognizing the limits of their electoral argument, Democratic leaders are now tasked with constructing a more nuanced and affirmative case for Watford's nomination. This involves not only highlighting his legal acumen and balanced rulings but also appealing to broader concerns about the Supreme Court's role in addressing national issues such as civil rights, environmental laws, and healthcare.

 

Amid high-level political maneuvers in Washington, grassroots pressures are mounting across the country. Democratic-leaning groups across the country have signaled a need for Watford to be confirmed. This threat underscores the growing influence of activist bases in shaping political outcomes and adds an additional layer of urgency to the Democratic campaign for Watford. Failure to confirm Watford may have consequences for the activist wing of the party, particularly amongst voters of color who largely support the Watford nomination. Conversely, right-leaning voters, particularly in states where Republicans voted for Watford, are being energized against the nomination.

 

As the Senate gears up for what promises to be a contentious confirmation process, the stakes extend beyond Watford's personal judicial future. This nomination is emblematic of broader political and ideological battles that will shape the American judicial landscape for years to come. For Democrats, securing Watford's place on the Supreme Court would not only be a victory for their judicial philosophy but also a reaffirmation of their electoral mandate. Some strategists suggest that pushing the Watford nomination through quickly is the best solution for Democrats, as it will allow the national debate to move on and let Watford's record speak for itself.

 

For Republicans, the fight against Watford's nomination offers an opportunity to solidify conservative values within the judiciary and energize their base ahead of future elections. While winning some independents over is a daunting challenge, this nomination is an opportunity to solidify support with right-leaning groups, which would be a tactical victory. Forcing President de la Cruz to nominate a new justice would be an impressive victory for the Republican Party.

 

In this charged atmosphere, Judge Watford's nomination transcends individual achievement: a symbol of the tumultuous and highly charged nature of Supreme Court politics in contemporary America. As both sides of the aisle prepare for a prolonged battle, the outcome will undoubtedly leave a lasting imprint on the nation's highest court and its judicial ethos.

[Conrad]

Rising Cyberattacks Strain US Infrastructure

 

Companies across the United States are facing a growing threat from increasingly sophisticated cyberattacks, straining the nation's critical infrastructure. From power grids and water treatment facilities to transportation networks and financial institutions.

 

Experts warn that the frequency and complexity of cyberattacks are on a sharp rise. Malicious actors, ranging from state-sponsored groups to criminal organizations, are employing a wider range of tactics. These include ransomware attacks, which encrypt data and demand payment for its release, as well as data breaches aimed at stealing sensitive information like intellectual property or personal data.

 

A recent high-profile example was the December 2016 cyberattack on the Ukrainian power grid. This incident, just a year after a previous successful attack, targeted the Pivnichna substation near Kyiv. Unlike the 2015 assault that caused blackouts lasting several hours, the 2016 attack aimed for more lasting damage. It employed a new malware variant called Industroyer, designed not just to disrupt operations but to potentially cause physical harm to electrical equipment. Thankfully, due to a combination of quick response by Ukrainian operators and the malware's own limitations, the attack resulted in a power outage lasting just over an hour. Despite not being in the United States, it highlights the need for preparedness.

 

Despite not being in the United States, this incident serves as a stark reminder of the evolving tactics of cyber attackers and the potential consequences for critical infrastructure. 

 

The strain on US infrastructure is compounded by two significant factors: the aging of many systems and a shortage of qualified cybersecurity professionals. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has repeatedly issued failing grades to US infrastructure, highlighting vulnerabilities. Meanwhile, there's a growing cybersecurity workforce gap, leaving many systems understaffed and potentially exposed.

 

"We're facing a cyber war, and our defenses are woefully inadequate," according to Professor James Whitmore, a leading voice on cybersecurity issues. "Congress needs to act with urgency to provide the resources and authorities necessary to secure our critical infrastructure. We can't afford to wait for the next major attack."

 

The government should begin to actively address these issues, is the call from many experts. Increased resources should be allocated to improve cyber defenses, with a focus on threat detection, incident response, and vulnerability management. 

 

However, some experts warn that these measures may not be sufficient. They advocate for stricter regulations on data security, particularly for companies entrusted with sensitive personal information. Additionally, increased funding for cybersecurity research and development is seen as critical to stay ahead of evolving cyber threats.

 

The battle against cyberattacks is a continuous one, with the stakes constantly rising. The United States faces a critical challenge in securing its infrastructure and protecting its citizens from the ever-evolving threat of cyberwarfare.

 

[Tedder]

Puerto Rico Files for Largest U.S. Municipal Bankruptcy in History

 

SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO — In a move that could mark the largest bankruptcy ever in the $3.8 trillion U.S. municipal bond market, Puerto Rico announced a historic restructuring of its public debt on Wednesday. Governor Ricardo Rosselló addressed the urgent need for financial reform during a meeting of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico at the Convention Center in San Juan.

 

The bankruptcy filing comes on the heels of litigation initiated by major creditors, following defaults on the island's bonds. While the total amount of the $70 billion debt to be included in the filing was not immediately clear, experts suggest that it will surpass the scale of Detroit's 2013 insolvency. Although the bankruptcy will not immediately impact the day-to-day lives of the island’s residents, future implications could include cuts in pensions, worker benefits, and possible reductions in health and education services. Puerto Rico has endured a recession for nearly a decade, accompanied by an unemployment rate of approximately 11.0 percent, and a 10 percent decline in population over the last decade.

 

This bankruptcy process under Title III of last year's U.S. Congressional rescue law, PROMESA, will allow Puerto Rico to potentially impose significant reductions on creditor recoveries and could deter future investment, delaying the island's return to the debt markets. Despite this, the process provides a legal framework for restructuring that is unavailable through traditional Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy protection due to Puerto Rico's territorial status. The filing, managed by Puerto Rico's financial oversight board in the U.S. District Court in Puerto Rico, only includes the central government's $18 billion constitution-backed debt. It does not immediately affect the $17 billion in sales tax-backed debt, known as COFINA debt, or other agency debts, though these may be incorporated into the bankruptcy or addressed in separate proceedings soon.

 

Amidst the unfolding events, Governor Rosselló expressed a commitment to expedite negotiations, stating, "It is my hope that the government's Title III proceedings will accelerate the negotiation process." His fiscal plan, which only allocates $800 million annually for debt payment—less than a quarter of the total due—has been a point of contention among creditors.

 

Despite the contention, some view the bankruptcy as a necessary step to stabilize the commonwealth's finances while maintaining essential services. Susheel Kirpalani, a lawyer for COFINA bondholders, endorsed the approach, noting it as a means to halt multiple lawsuits and sustain critical public services. However, the process is expected to be lengthy and complex, with various parties likely to challenge the legality of the filing and the approach taken by the oversight board. As Puerto Rico navigates through these unprecedented financial waters, the outcome of this bankruptcy filing will undoubtedly influence the future economic landscape of the island and its relationship with creditors and investors alike.

[Ollie]

Chaos and Missteps: Senate Freedom Caucus Spooks GOP Donors, Meddles in WI Special Election, and Spark Accusations of Racism

 

(WASHINGTON D.C.) - The Senate Freedom Caucus has been at the center of firestorms and controversy after several weeks of leading members Sen. Jason Roy (R-SC) and Sen. David Stewart (R-PA) being in the news for accusations of racism, meddling in the Wisconsin Special election primary, and causing concern and backlash among major Republican donors and legacy figures in the party. 

 

Sen. Jason Roy (R-SC) has been perhaps the most controversial figure in the entire Senate due to his inflammatory and bigoted remarks on social media as well as a recent speech he delivered at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) which, according to those in attendance, left many in the crowd "slack jawed" and "horrified" by his comments. At the event, Roy told attendees that "we have an anchor baby as President of the United States," asking the crowd "can you believe it?" Roy went on to say to speak directly to President de la Cruz, saying "we let your mother in, she got over here and dropped you out on American soil, but it wasn't enough I guess. It wasn't enough, people. Now she wants to let in her cousins; [sic] her nieces and nephews, her MS13 gang-member friends." Roy also suggested a "Muslim ban" because the country was being "invaded", while pointing out former Senate Majority Leader Alex Fakhouri was "the same religion as Osama bin Laden." In the past, Roy suggested that Paul Watford's entire was "thanks to affirmative action." 

 

The comments lead to widespread backlash and criticism, although not totally, as Roy was full-throatily endorsed by Richard Spencer, a self-proclaimed white nationalist, and a crowd of his supporters. At an event shortly after CPAC, Spencer called Roy "the future of the political right" and told the crowd in attendance that he was "speaking our language." The crowd was delivering the Seig Heil salute, famously used by the Nazi Party in Germany, in video released by The Daily Beast. Roy was condemned by major rank-and-file figures in the party. Now Former Senate Minority Leader Cliff Fleming (R-AL) spoke out on social media against Roy. "Jason Roy is not representative of the Republican Party," Fleming wrote, "I have said before and will say again, his views do not match those of the other 48 members of the Senate Republican Caucus." Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said there was "no place for bigotry in the GOP" while Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) called Roy's comments "stupid, moronic, racist, disgusting, and intolerable." 

 

What shocked many in Washington, including high level insiders, was the apparent removal of Cliff Fleming as the Republican Senate Leader by the Republican Senate Conference. Fleming addressed this on Twitter shortly after a number of rules changes were passed to the conference charter. "Following changes to the Charter forced upon me at the threat of removal, my actions in calling out the hateful rhetoric of Senator Roy has led himself, Senator Lawler and Senator Cambridge to remove myself and Minority Whip van Horn without any sort of vote, debate or chance to defend ourselves," Fleming wrote, "this is sadly the state of the Senate Freedom Caucus and an explanation for why I ended my affiliation with them several months ago." 

 

Fleming said he had a "special shout out" to Pennsylvania Senator David Stewart, saying that Stewart "represents the worst kind of backstabbing, insider DC politics imaginable." It's notable that Fleming also called out Senator James Cambridge (R-IA) and Senator Linda Lawler (R-TN) specifically by name, both who have come to the defense of Jason Roy. Cambridge is a member of the Republican Mainstreet Partnership but has worked closely with David Stewart and Jason Roy, specifically during the Supreme Court debacle, as Cambridge was the one to suggest Judge Jane Kelly be nominated by de la Cruz. 

 

Sen. David Stewart (R-PA) was the center of backlash involving the Wisconsin Special election, when news broke that Stewart had personally met with Teamsters President to strike a deal to oppose Scott Walker's bid for the Senate in exchange for Stewart's support to vote for a ban on Right to Work nationally. Hoffa was incredulous about the deal, saying he told Stewart during the meeting he would be adamantly opposing Walker regardless of anything he had to say. "I was rather ambivalent, I had low expectations, but anyone who wants to enhance the rights of unions has my ear," Hoffa told POLITICO. News of the deal further shocked political observers, considering Republican hostility to unions and labor laws like collective bargaining. 

 

Upon hearing the news, many staffers within the NRSC were furious. An anonymous staffer called Stewart's gambit "the dumbest f***ing thing I've ever heard," saying that it was "seemingly designed to try and sink Walker to placate union interests, and for what?" A spokesperson for Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI) said that the Congressman "had nothing to do with David Stewart, James Hoffa, or any kind of meeting," and said Tiffany was "not in support of any kind of national right-to-work ban." 

 

Stewart's attempts to go behind the back of party leaders to strike deals didn't end there. A high-level staffer in the office of former Senate Majority Leader Alex Fakhouri (D-MI) revealed to The New York Times that Stewart was heavily involved with negotiations with Fakhouri on Paul Watford's nomination to the Supreme Court. According to the source, initial negotiations between Fakhouri and Fleming "lead no where," as Fleming insisted on a conservative nominee and simply "wouldn't budge." This prompted Fakhouri to backchannel with Stewart, who the source says claimed he had "a great amount of influence" within the Republican Senate Conference. "Not only did Stewart actively lobby votes for Watford, but he also pledged support for Judges Jane Kelly, Lucy Koh, and Patricia Millet in the event Watford failed," the staffer said. According to the staffer, it was a generous offer from Stewart, who also encouraged debate on the Equality Act, the Mass Incarceration Act, and the Cambridge-Richards child care bill. It's unclear why Stewart would lobby votes for Watford despite publicly opposing his nomination and voting against him. 

 

Roy and Stewart's wild adventures haven't come without consequence. Several major Republican donors have come forward and admitted they are concerned about the future of the party. One major donor, who asked to remain anonymous, said Roy was "embarrassing us, the party, and damaging our chances at winning a very important high level election in Wisconsin." Another donor in Wisconsin said Stewart's involvement with Teamsters was "the real nail in the coffin for his credibility as a possible major figure in the party." Staffers who committed to the NRSC have resigned in light of Fleming's removal as well, leaving a slew of empty roles needing filled by incoming RNC Chairman Tom Donelson. 

 

The Pennsylvania Republican Party has censured both Roy and Stewart and have called on the RNC Chairman to do so the same. Several Pennsylvania State Senators who previously endorsed Stewart withdrew their support from him after the news broke as well. "I want nothing to do with whatever nonsense they are trying to achieve," Gary Howard, a Republican State Senator, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "These guys are arsonists, they aren't real leaders, they are just lighting fires for the sake of it, in what seems like a desperate need for attention," Howard continued, "I won't support it." 

 

Nonetheless, it seems Roy and Stewart enjoy wider support among the Senate Republican Conference, as a number of their colleagues have jumped to their defense and instead criticized the media or Democrats and it remains unclear if there will be any consequences for Roy or Stewart, though it's clear there is mounting pressure on Republicans to quell the self-created crises and negative media coverage in the lead up to the upcoming Wisconsin Special election, and the 2018 midterms. 

[Ollie]

President Xiomara de la Cruz Resigns Due to Severe Cancer Diagnosis

 

(Washington D.C.) - In a shocking turn of events, President Xiomara de la Cruz has announced her resignation from office after receiving a devastating diagnosis of a severe form of pancreatic cancer. The news, which has sent shockwaves across the nation, comes as a heavy blow to both her supporters and the political landscape of our country. President de la Cruz, known for her unwavering dedication to public service and her tireless efforts to improve the lives of citizens, has been forced to step down from her position due to the demanding nature of the treatment required to combat her illness. The cancer, identified as stage IV pancreatic cancer, poses an immense threat to her health and well-being, requiring immediate and intensive medical attention. Pancreatic cancer is notorious for its aggressive nature and low survival rates.

 

It arises when cells in the pancreas, a vital organ responsible for producing enzymes that aid in digestion and hormones that regulate blood sugar levels, begin to grow uncontrollably. By the time symptoms manifest, the cancer is often in advanced stages, making it challenging to treat effectively. In President de la Cruz's case, the advanced stage of her cancer necessitates an aggressive treatment regimen that includes chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and possibly surgery. These treatments are not only physically demanding but also mentally and emotionally taxing. The side effects, ranging from nausea and fatigue to hair loss and weakened immune system, would severely limit her ability to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of the presidency. As the leader of our nation, the President's role demands constant attention, decision-making, and engagement with both domestic and international affairs. "My heart is with the nation, but my focus must be on my recovery," the President said.

 

"Battling a life-threatening illness requires her full focus and energy," the first Gentleman told the nation speaking alongside President de la Cruz, "leaving little room for the demanding rigors of governing and effectively leading the country." Understandably, President de la Cruz has made the difficult but necessary decision to prioritize her health and well-being over her political career. In her resignation speech, de la Cruz recognized her supporters, those who have been by her side during her diagnosis, and the American people for being patient. de la Cruz also spent a significant portion of her speech thanking Vice President Doug Murphy and reassuring the American people of her full faith and trust in him. 

 

Despite the immense challenges ahead, she remains optimistic about the future and urged unity and resilience in the face of adversity. The resignation of President Xiomara de la Cruz marks the end of an era in our nation's history. Her leadership, integrity, and dedication to public service have left an indelible mark on our society, and her absence will undoubtedly be felt deeply. At noon tomorrow, Doug Murphy will take office and become the 46th President of the United States. Murphy will have to tackle a number of challenges, including a vacant seat on the Supreme Court, choosing a new Vice President, and creating a renewed agenda. 

[Conrad]

 

Republican Study Caucus Regains Control

 

The Republican Study Caucus has reclaimed the reins of power within the Grand Old Party after a turbulent period marked by internal strife and ideological clashes. With a resounding resurgence, the study caucus has ousted the Freedom Caucus from its dominant position, reasserting its influence as the primary voice of conservative principles in the Senate, with the help of the Republican Governors Association to solidify the hold by re-affirming the old party charter. They have made clear they will not do this again.

 

The shift in power comes after a series of tumultuous months during which the GOP found itself embroiled in internal discord and leadership struggles. Following the departure of key moderates and the ascendance of staunchly conservative voices, the balance of power within the party began to tilt towards the Freedom Caucus, traditionally known for its uncompromising stance on fiscal and social issues. Although rather spectacularly, its chairman trying to strike more left wing and centre tones by supporting a what many conservatives call a liberal pick for the Supreme Court and trying to strike a deal with the Teamsters Union. It left many conservatives scratching their heads as well.

 

However, recent developments have seen the study caucus, which boasts the largest membership among Republican caucuses in the Senate regaining control of the Floor Leader in the US Senate and capturing the Republican National Committee Chairmanship, recently vacated by Tom Donelson. The Republican Party in the Senate is now led by Senator Fleming, who was ousted as Minority Leader a number of months ago under now repealed charter rules.

 

Resurgence of the study committee to influential positions within the party signals a notable shift in the dynamics for the GOP. The moves hold significant implications for the broader political landscape, particularly as the party prepares for midterm elections. With control of the Senate hanging in the balance, the study committees renewed prominence could galvanize Republican voters and bolster the party's electoral prospects, presenting a formidable challenge to Democratic incumbents. Democrats currently hold a sizeable money advantage over Republicans thanks to recent events over the last number of months. 

 

The Beltway was not without its comments on the scenario, 

"Despite the Study Caucus regaining control, it's imperative to remain vigilant against the regressive policies they may push forward. How long before they give it up to the loonies again?Their return to power underscores the GOP's continued embrace of extreme conservatism, which threatens the progress we've made on issues like healthcare." - Sarah Smith, Political Analyst, MSNBC. 

 

"The shift in power within the Senate Republican ranks highlights the ongoing struggle for control between the party's moderate and conservative wings. While the resurgence of the Republican Study Caucus may bring stability to GOP leadership, it also raises questions about the party's ability to navigate internal divisions and work towards bipartisan solutions on pressing national issues." - Jane Kelly, Political Analyst, CNN. 

 

"The Study Caucus reclaiming leadership signifies a return to principled conservatism within the GOP. With their focus on limited government and fiscal responsibility, they are steering the party back on track towards policies that promote economic growth and individual freedom. You know, those bread and butter issues that have won elections for Republicans time and time again." - John Henry, Conservative Commentator, Fox News

 

The GOP is poised to flex its muscle in the confirmation process, potentially blocking two of President's cabinet nominees. Amidst Democratic divisions on the issue, the GOP's strengthened position could embolden them to assert greater scrutiny over the nominees in question.

 

This new (old) leadership is not without its challenges. As the party grapples with evolving demographics and shifting public opinion on key issues, the leadership faces the daunting task of adapting its agenda to resonate with a changing electorate while staying true to its core conservative principles, and also dealing with a tamed freedom caucus, for now. 

 

With the Republican Study Caucus back at the helm, one thing is clear: the GOP is poised for a new chapter.