Login
Corporate diversity efforts could be on the chopping block following the Supreme Court’s decision barring the use of race as a direct factor in college admissions.
The court’s six conservative justices ruled that two colleges’ admissions practices discriminated against white and Asian American applicants through race-based policies that benefited applicants from other backgrounds.
Though the decision does not outright implicate so-called diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, attorneys and some business groups say that it provides fresh ammunition to critics seeking to upend these workplace programs. Conservative Republicans, including state and federal lawmakers and, notably, GOP presidential candidate Ron DeSantis, have harshly criticized such policies.
“It will cause employers to take a closer look at how they are executing their diversity strategies,” Tim Bartl, the CEO of the HR Policy Association, told POLITICO shortly after the decision was handed down. “And it really creates an impetus for employers to reaffirm their commitment to diversity, but to do so in a way that mitigates the potential of challenge down the line.”
Federal civil rights law already bars discrimination based on race or skin color in employment decisions, among a list of other protected characteristics like age and a person’s sex or gender.
But for decades the court had extended greater leeway to colleges and universities, on the grounds that bolstering student body diversity enriches the learning experience. Thursday’s decision departs from that thinking, instead ruling that such race-based decisions run afoul of the Constitution’s equal-protection clause.
“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” Chief Justice John Roberts stated in the majority opinion.
That could also be extended to challenge DEI and other workplace diversity efforts on the grounds that they tacitly benefit certain workers over others. Some civil rights groups have also raised concerns that further restricting race-based affirmative action could lay a path to similarly limiting gender-focused programs.
Affirmative action has been a hot-button issue since at least the Civil Rights era, with periodic flare ups over things like racial quotas and other policies designed to diversify the workplace and other parts of society.
A wide constellation of things fall under the umbrella of DEI, which was pitched in part as a way to foster and promote a more equal work environment without resorting to the type of prescriptive measures that have inflamed tensions in the past.
DEI took off particularly in the wake of the 2020 murder of George Floyd, a Black man, by a white police officer in Minnesota. Companies latched onto these policies as a way to attract and retain talent, particularly women and younger workers who have regularly cited diversity as an important value to them in surveys and public opinion polls.
A Pew Research Center survey from May found that 56 percent of workers said that focusing on DEI was a “good thing,” compared to 16 percent who said it was bad.
But the proliferation of these polices have also provoked a conservative backlash, with detractors scorning DEI as “woke” and divisive.
"While today’s decision is an important step, racial bias of all types must be eliminated from all institutions in our society, whether they go by the name of affirmative action or fall under the newest Leftist moniker of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI)," Matt Schlapp, chair of the Conservative Political Action Coalition, said in a statement.
Republican lawmakers have moved to crack down on DEI initiatives on college campuses and other areas.
America First Legal, a group headed by Donald Trump adviser Stephen Miller, in recent months has filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission seeking investigations into corporate diversity and hiring practices at major companies like Unilever, McDonalds and candy maker Mars.
Corporations have already expressed some unease about being placed in the center of these competing pressures, and Thursday’s ruling will likely spur some to consider overhauling their diversity practices or back off on them to avoid potential legal headaches.
“I think that there will be a greater attention paid to exactly how employers are looking at representation and how they're looking at inclusion,” Bartl said. “Because at the end of the day, what employers really want out of their diversity programs is to identify a pool of diverse, qualified candidates that can be under consideration and then allow that process to work its way out.”
Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling will likely spur some corporation to consider overhauling their diversity practices or back off on them to avoid potential legal headaches.
At a time of almost constant political upheaval across the UK in the last few years, sometimes it feels that nothing would surprise us. But the astonishing events that unfolded in Glasgow on the morning of April 5 managed to detonate that notion. At the end of the new first minister Humza Yousaf’s first seven days in charge, the Scottish National Party (SNP) was in the global spotlight for all the wrong reasons.
Police Scotland announced that they had arrested a 58-year-old man as a “suspect in connection with an investigation into the funding and finances” of the SNP, the governing party of the country. Minutes later the media revealed that person was Peter Murrell, ex-chief executive of the SNP and husband of the recently retired first minister, Nicola Sturgeon.
The nature of the specific arrest of Murrell is relatively new in Scots law. He has not been charged with any criminal offence and was released yesterday evening within the 12-hour window police have to charge or free a suspect – pending further investigations.
What this type of arrest does allow for though, is the possibility of searching premises linked to the individual in custody. On cue, cameras showed the rather shocking spectacle of the extensive police presence at both Murrell’s home – complete with screens and a plastic gazebo – and the SNP offices in Edinburgh where he spent 24 years in his leading role.
Although it already seems another era, Murrell entered the Scottish public consciousness relatively recently when he resigned three weeks ago during the SNP leadership campaign over a row with the media about membership numbers.
For someone so entwined in the biggest Scottish political party for so long – Murrell’s first political job was as office manager for ex-first minister Alex Salmond in the 1990s – it is clear that, as new party leader Yousuf said: “This is a difficult day for the party.” However, this was something of an understatement as fleets of police vans pulled up outside party headquarters and a helicopter hovered over Murrell and Sturgeon’s home just outside Glasgow.
It is not fully clear what the police investigation covers and what evidence they are searching for. It was reported last week that the police had passed a dossier to Scottish criminal prosecutor the Crown Office on their initial investigation into the finances of the SNP. A decision to take that investigation further would be made by the independent prosecutor; clearly, given Wednesday’s events, that decision was executed.
The issues around the investigation seem to focus on a specific fund of £600,000 that was raised by the party from members and supporters for an independence campaign that has not taken place.
This is not the first time financial issues have been raised about the funds. There was a discussion internally in the SNP with MP Douglas Chapman resigning as party treasurer in May 2021 because he said he was not given enough information about the finances to be able to do his job. This accusation was rejected by other party officials, as was the possibility of any police investigation into the finances at that point.
It was then revealed last year that Murrell had loaned the SNP £108,000 in 2021. Initially the party accounts did not directly indicate the money had come from him – this was revealed by the Electoral Commission. Some repayments had been made to Murrell, but £60,000 is still due to be repaid.
These may be some of the issues being explored by the police as they are all related to the finances of the SNP, but it is impossible to be specific. The announcement of the arrest came with the warning that the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is now live.
The Crown Office has taken a strong approach with several high-profile and controversial criminal cases in Scotland in recent years. People have been successfully prosecuted for breaching reporting restrictions on live criminal cases on a variety of media. In a statement on Wednesday evening, Police Scotland advised the public to exercise caution if discussing events on social media.
Clearly, though, the shock of Murrell’s arrest has some way to play out and more will be revealed as events unfold. For the SNP, already under fire for the bitterly divisive nature of its leadership contest and the choosing of a continuity candidate for its new party leader, the optics are not good.
Nick McKerrell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Nature, Published online: 05 April 2023; doi:10.1038/d41586-023-01006-z
Researchers see most distant pair of supermassive black holes yet observed, and assessing an AI's ability to interpret heart images.
On Friday, the Internet Archive lost its "controlled digital lending" case on summary judgment. Reactions today from our Chefs Rick Anderson, Joseph Esposito, Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe, Roy Kaufman, Roger C. Schonfeld, and Karin Wulf.
The post The Internet Archive Loses on Controlled Digital Lending appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
In a major victory for labor unions, Michigan on Friday became the first state in more than half a century to repeal a right-to-work law.
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed legislation passed by the Democratic-controlled Legislature, overturning a 2012 GOP law that allowed workers to choose not to join unions or pay union dues as a condition of employment, even if the union represents them in negotiations.
“Michigan workers are the most talented and hard-working in the world and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect,” Whitmer, who was the Democratic leader in the state Senate at the time the right-to-work law was enacted, said in a statement.
Republicans, however, said the move would backfire by discouraging employers from locating or expanding in the state.
“Dramatically transforming our policies to harm workers and job providers will hang a ‘Closed for Business’ sign at our state’s borders and take Michigan off the list for future projects,” House Republican Leader Matt Hall said in a statement earlier this week during the vote on final passage.
The anti-union law’s repeal is a particularly significant symbolic victory given the special place Michigan holds in the organized labor movement.
“For us, being the home of labor and getting attacked 10 years ago was a gut punch to workers across Michigan,” state Sen. Darrin Camilleri, the sponsor of MI SB34 (23R), told POLITICO. “We are a state so steeped in union activism and union history that we knew this was a policy that our constituents wanted for the last 10 years as well.”
Even with the move, more than half the states in the country have right-to-work laws on the books. The Michigan Legislature’s repeal is the first since Indiana did so in 1965, before reverting in 2012. (Missouri voters in 2018 blocked a right-to-work law passed by Republican lawmakers.)
Proponents of such laws say they allow workers to freely choose whether to support union causes and make states attractive to businesses. It also saps membership and financial power from labor unions — a key part of the Democratic coalition — another reason right-to-work appeals to Republican lawmakers and conservatives.
Michigan’s law was highly contentious when Republicans pushed it through during the lame-duck session following the 2012 election, with unions rallying thousands of people to the statehouse in protest of the legislation. The state’s then-governor, Republican Rick Snyder, at the time pointed to voters’ overwhelming rejection of a state constitutional amendment that would have enshrined collective bargaining rights as validation of the GOP’s actions.
“It was a quite a heavy victory,” for opponents of the constitutional amendment, said Patrick Wright, the vice president for legal affairs at the conservative Mackinac Center for Public Policy. “It became a lot easier for people to think about it and take those votes.”
Michigan’s repeal was years in the making and is just one of several high-profile progressive issues statehouse Democrats have taken on in the months after narrowly gaining unified control of the legislature for the first time since the 1980s.
The effort was helped by several factors unique to the state, though by the same token could make it hard for union backers to replicate Michigan’s example elsewhere.
For one, Michigan’s law was far less entrenched than others — some of which date back to the 1940s or have been written into state constitutions — and the memories of the 2012 defeat remain relatively fresh in Democrats’ minds.
“I just remember being so incredibly distraught, outraged, and feeling helpless about not being able to do anything about it and the way in which it was done,” said state Rep. Regina Weiss, a former teacher who sponsored the repeal legislation. “That was the first time I was really starting to pay attention to what was happening in state politics in Michigan.”
Weiss is among the more than 40 percent of state House Democrats — 24 out of 56 — who have been members of a union, according to data from the Michigan AFL-CIO.
Repeal backers also credited the successful 2018 ballot initiative to create an independent redistricting commission as integral to making it possible for Democrats to gain control of the Legislature, as opposed to a state like neighboring Wisconsin, where district lines were drawn to favor Republicans.
“That’s the difference between having a legislative majority that has your back and wants to expand workers’ rights, as opposed to being in the minority and having a legislature that was to suppress workers’ rights,” Ron Bieber, the head of the Michigan AFL-CIO, said in an interview.
Michigan is also the home of several big-name Republican donors, such as financier Ron Weiser and the DeVos family, who have bankrolled right-to-work and other conservative causes and galvanized opponents.
“When you explain that these initiatives that are backed by Betsy DeVos, or whomever, folks here know that’s probably not a good thing for most working people because that’s not who they’re here for,” Weiss said.
A spokesperson for the former secretary of Education did not return a request for comment.
Along with the right-to-work repeal, which applies to private-sector workers, Michigan lawmakers passed legislation MI HB4004 (23R) that would apply to public-sector jobs in the event the U.S. Supreme Court revisited its 2018 Janus decision, which held that requiring non-union public employees to pay agency fees to unions was unconstitutional.
Democrats also passed a measure reinstating prevailing wage requirements for publicly funded construction projects MI HB4007 (23R) previously repealed by the GOP.
“Michigan in 2023 is not the same as Michigan in 2012,” Bieber said.
“Michigan workers are the most talented and hard-working in the world and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect,” said Gov. Gretchen Whitmer after signing the legislation.
Elated Senate Republicans believe they are on the cusp of landing their highest-profile recruit of the 2024 campaign: West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice.
Justice, a Democrat-turned-Republican with sky-high approval ratings, is increasingly expected to launch a bid for Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-W.Va.) seat after consulting with top party officials in Washington this month, according to a half-dozen GOP senators and aides. A Justice candidacy would notch two big wins for Republicans, breaking their losing streak in recruiting popular governors and reshaping next year’s battleground map.
Republicans privately predict Justice may wait to enter the race until at least next month in order to have a full fundraising quarter. And though the timing is in flux, the GOP would be gobsmacked at this point if he did not run.
He is dropping hints everywhere. He’s put his coal business up for sale to pay off debts and met with National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair Steve Daines (R-Mont.) last week. He finished up his state’s legislative session earlier this month, pushing through a tax cut after Manchin helped direct federal funds to the state. And he’s been texting with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), according to two people familiar with Justice's interactions.
“The governor has a good political sense. So I am assuming that he's going to get in,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.). “It would change things. He has a huge approval rating, he just passed the biggest tax cut in state history. He’s got a lot of good things to talk about.”
But Justice’s plans, not to mention Republicans’ confidence that he puts them in striking distance of picking up a Democrat-held seat, doesn’t faze the incumbent one “iota.” Manchin reiterated in an interview that he won’t decide whether he’ll run until the end of the year, describing himself as content to watch his rivals spar from afar — for a few months, at least.
“God bless them, it’ll be entertaining to watch their primary. That’s the greatest thing,” Manchin said.
The Senate GOP whiffed repeatedly during the 2022 midterms on trying to recruit popular governors like Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, Doug Ducey of Arizona and Larry Hogan of Maryland. Already this year, though, former Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts has joined the Senate via appointment. Justice is different: The party’s spent months courting him, and Republicans believe if he runs they will get much closer to picking up a Democrat-held seat.
In conversations with D.C. Republicans, Justice has discussed the pros and cons of making the jump from governor to senator, according to one of the people familiar with his interactions. Yet Justice has made no final public decision. And until he files his candidate paperwork, there’s still a chance he backs out.
Should he jump in, he'd immediately help Republicans solidify their path to a majority which runs through Ohio, Montana and West Virginia. They need to net two seats to take back the majority, regardless of the outcome of the presidential race.
Still, a Justice win isn’t straightforward. He’ll have to navigate Republican primary waters in his state that are already choppy thanks to Rep. Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.), whom former President Donald Trump and the Club for Growth backed in a hotly contested House GOP primary last year.
Mooney launched his campaign almost immediately after the midterms, and Justice already feuded with him last year when the Freedom Caucus member defeated former Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.). Both Manchin and Justice supported McKinley over Mooney, a former Maryland state senator.
Not only did Justice cut a TV ad for McKinley, he openly questioned Mooney’s “ability to represent West Virginians well, after spending the majority of his time and life representing Maryland.”
In a preview of a potential Senate primary attack line, Justice also claimed last year that he had only met with Mooney once since he became governor. Mooney shot back to POLITICO that the governor's response was "petty anyhow, the phone works both ways" — adding that he had five pictures with Justice, each of which showed him wearing different ties.
In an interview Thursday, with Justice’s potential launch looming, Mooney vowed that “I can beat whoever runs” but declined to lob fresh attacks at the governor: “I'll wait for him to announce before I comment on any of that stuff.”
Mooney, a staunch fiscal conservative, could run to Justice’s right. He has already signaled he will knock the governor for endorsing Democrats’ $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure law.
Club for Growth President David McIntosh said his group won’t back Justice, whom he described as in “the moderate camp,” but would be open to supporting Mooney. Meanwhile, the Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC closely aligned with McConnell, commissioned a poll showing Justice as the only candidate who can beat Manchin.
If he decides to run, Justice would also have to file personal financial disclosures that would invite more scrutiny of his financial holdings than he has faced in the past. Asked if he thought the primary sparring could turn personal, Mooney said pointedly: “You should ask him about that.”
The general election could get quite messy, too, in a state where everyone in politics seems to know each other. Manchin and Justice share a political network, with lobbyist and consultant Larry Puccio serving as an advisor to both.
“They are both my friends and wonderful people, past that I really don’t do interviews,” Puccio told POLITICO in a brief phone call. “I’m not an elected official and I prefer to keep my thoughts to myself."
The race could scramble the close-knit Senate as well. Manchin endorsed a pair of moderate Republicans in the past, and they are returning the favor. One of them, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), said she’s already donated money to Manchin and expected little blowback back home for it. She made the donation a couple weeks ago at a joint event with Manchin, and encouraged other attendees to do the same, according to a person familiar with the matter.
“He’s a close friend. Should he choose to run again, I would anticipate endorsing him,” said the other, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).
Still, most Republicans suspect Manchin would likely bow out rather than face defeat by Justice. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said that “I keep hearing Manchin might not run again if he had to run against the governor.”
“He’s a force to be reckoned with in West Virginia. It’ll be hard for any Republican or Democrat to beat” Justice, said Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.).
But Manchin isn’t conceding their point. Responding to the idea that Justice would either force him out or beat him, Manchin said: “They could be wrong on both. Who knows?”
Justice ran as a Democrat in 2016, with Manchin’s endorsement, and his later party switch irked the Democratic governor-turned-senator. Manchin then ran for re-election in 2018, defeating Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, but flirted with running against Justice in 2020.
With that in mind, Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), who chairs Democrats’ campaign arm, brushed aside any aura of invincibility around Justice: “Our incumbent is unbeatable, with a proven track record. So I’m confident.”
“If every time a candidate like Jim Justice got in a race and we said, ‘oh my God forget about it’, we wouldn't have 51" seats, said Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.), a campaign arm vice chair.
The biggest potential wild card for Manchin would be running in a presidential year, requiring an extreme split-ticket path to victory in his red state. He won handily in 2012 alongside former President Barack Obama, whom he did not endorse, but plenty has changed in politics since then. Including the GOP governor looking to go to Washington.
“When he gets in, he’ll be a formidable opponent no matter if Manchin runs or not,” Daines said.
A Jim Justice candidacy would break Republicans’ losing streak in recruiting popular governors for the Senate and reshape next year’s battleground map.
Snappy suits, sparkling smiles, and sob stories—that’s all anyone needs to become a career coach or self-help speaker, right? From print books to online influencers, there is no shortage of gurus willing to help you organize your love life, finances, and more—for a price. But there is little research examining why these so-called “experts” are considered believable. A new piece by Patrick Sheehan shows that career coaches who often lack degrees, credentials, or even any tangible evidence that their work works are still seen as helpful by their clients.
Sheehan observed weekly meetings of “job clubs” for unemployed professionals. He also conducted interviews with club leaders, attendees, and career coaches, professionals who assist people in job searches with both technical and emotional support. Finally, he examined the websites, biographies, and LinkedIn profiles of 15 coaches. These interviews, in combination with the other materials that Sheehan collected, established that emotional connections with clients could serve as qualifications rather than degrees.
Have you ever had a teacher mention failing a class? Did it make you think of them as more relatable or reliable? Sheehan found that many professional career coaches use a similar strategy, gaining the trust of their clients by telling stories of their long-term unemployment. Most of the coaches Sheehan interviewed had inconsistent work experiences and long periods of unemployment, like their clients. Somewhat surprisingly, Sheehan found that self-help professionals maximize their personal stories of unemployment to form emotional connections, all while minimizing their formal credentials. For example, one client described the career coach she hired saying, “I think that she’s going to work hard for me because she’s been in my shoes. Maybe that’s a false assumption on my part, but that’s kind of, I guess, how I feel.”self-help professionals maximize their personal stories of unemployment to form emotional connections, all while minimizing their formal credentialsHowever, these coaches also use their higher position as in-demand specialists to validate their advice. One client Sheehan interviewed talked about how their coach tells them “‘Here, I’m successful, but I was where you were twenty years ago.’” In response, the client said “you can’t help but get your hopes up. So even if … they’re falsely raised, it’s what you want to hear.” In other words, self-help “experts” use their personal experiences to both connect with their clients and establish themselves as experts on how to transcend spotty employment histories.
The bottom line is that, unlike doctors or therapists who use emotional connections to make their existing credentials more respected, self-help experts rely almost entirely on their clients’ opinions of them.
In today’s society where being seen as credible seems more challenging than ever for scientists and doctors and others, could it be that career coaches reflect a shift in social attitudes toward expertise, assistance, and support where personal experiences and emotional connections become as (or more) important than other traditional factors and credentials? Maybe experts in another field should consider adding personal testimonials next to the degrees proudly displayed on those office walls.
Nature, Published online: 22 March 2023; doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00867-8
A method to test and teach autonomous cars how to deal with dangerous situations, and a renewed interest in bats and how they deal with viruses.
Nature, Published online: 08 March 2023; doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00700-2
Why smoke particles from wildfires lead to ozone depletion, and modelling food systems with ‘digital twins’.
Rep. Thomas Massie was so eager for Donald Trump's endorsement in a contested primary three years ago that he ran TV ads targeted at the then-president in Florida to win his support.
Today, Massie is all but shunning Trump and his comeback campaign. In fact, the Kentucky Republican attended a retreat last weekend for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
“Ron DeSantis is the best governor there ever was,” he said when asked if he planned to endorse in the 2024 presidential primary.
The Kentucky Republican is far from the only one-time Trump ally who’s staying away from the former president, despite his lead in every major poll so far. Some are looking more seriously at his would-be rivals like DeSantis or Gov. Nikki Haley. Others are intentionally staying on the sidelines but privately hoping he stumbles. That sentiment is deepening throughout the Republican Party — but no segment of the party illustrates the shift as vividly as the House GOP, whose members almost universally backed Trump in both previous races.
As of March 1, fewer than 20 House Republicans have formally endorsed Trump in the four months since he declared his third campaign, according to a POLITICO analysis. Roughly another dozen have publicly supported Trump in some way, though short of a formal endorsement. Just one member of House leadership, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), is included in those endorsements.
For now, Trump’s campaign doesn’t appear concerned about their tally of congressional support. Members of Trump’s team are in regular contact with lawmakers and they expect to roll out more endorsements soon, according to an adviser to Trump.
"We have an upcoming slate of national and statewide endorsements that will show the unmatched strength of President Trump’s campaign,” Steven Cheung, a Trump spokesperson, said in a statement.
"Our current list of powerful endorsers far outweighs and dwarfs any other campaign or prospective campaign in support.”
The widespread hesitancy would not be notable in another era — or if a former president was not already in the race. But in this instance, the lack of public support is perhaps the clearest sign yet that members feel Trump’s support is no longer a prerequisite for political survival. Trump’s vengeance is now barely registering as a threat, after years as one of the most dominant forces in politics.
“I'm the last person that would worry about that,” Massie said of possible retribution for not supporting Trump. “It backfires. You can't attack too many of your own party.”
Of course, the presidential primaries don’t begin for a year, and the field has yet to fully take shape. So far, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is the only other prominent declared GOP presidential candidate. DeSantis is not expected to launch a bid until the spring at the earliest, while Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) has said he is still mulling over the decision. Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, former Vice President Mike Pence and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are other possible candidates.
In interviews with nearly 20 House Republicans, many cited the uncertainty in the field as reason to keep quiet for now.
“We don't know what it's going to look like at the end of the day,” said Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.), whose suburban St. Louis district took a hard lurch to the left in the Trump era. “People should be keeping their powder dry.”
Some went even further, suggesting it might be time for the party to move on — even as they refrained from invoking the former president’s name.
"Primaries really need to be involved in a conversation about the future of the party," said centrist Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.), when asked if he planned to endorse in the race. He warned against a "coronation."
“I’m for generational change in both parties,” said Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.), a McCarthy ally and one-time Trump supporter who said he probably would not endorse in the race.
“With Governor DeSantis’ book coming out this week — I'm seeing him a lot these days,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who also attended the Florida governor’s recent retreat. “I'll look forward to hearing from him a little more.”
Each of them endorsed Trump in 2020.
Few Republicans are willing to openly speculate whether Trump’s current tepid level of support on Capitol Hill is an omen for the next two years. What is clear, though, is that crossing Trump is considered far less threatening.
Trump has been crusading since his 2016 election to remake the Republican Party in his image and oust any members who resist. In the past two years alone, he has sought retribution on GOP members who voted for impeachment (only two of the 10 were reelected last year) and those who supported a bipartisan infrastructure package.
And if Trump wasn’t driving the revenge train himself, his supporters waded in on his behalf. The House Republicans who voted to create a commission to investigate the Jan. 6 attacks saw a surge in primary challengers, and many who won saw their primary margins dive dangerously even though they were facing under-funded opponents.
But the specter of those tough races don’t seem to have driven members toward Trump for political inoculation.
“I'm not planning on endorsing anybody,” said Rep. Michael Guest (R-Miss.), who was forced into a surprise primary runoff in 2022 after a challenger weaponized his vote for the Jan. 6 commission. “It’s too early at this point.”
And while Trump has the field mostly to himself so far, few of the GOP lawmakers interviewed said they’ve heard from him or his team directly. One notable exception: Rep. William Timmons (R-S.C.) said he received a call from home-state Sen. Lindsay Graham, a top Trump ally.
Timmons said the decision was easy for him, despite the other South Carolinans who are likely to get in the race. “Trump’s Trump. Cross him at your peril.”
But not all his colleagues assessed the situation similarly. Another South Carolina Republican, Rep. Ralph Norman, endorsed Haley when she launched her bid last month. Norman served with her in the South Carolina state House but was previously a devoted ally of Trump.
As a sign of respect, Norman said he called the former president before he endorsed but did not fear any political repercussions: “Donald Trump was magnanimous and he understood, and I will never have a negative word about Donald Trump.”
He’s far from the only House Republican who feels like they’re forced to choose sides between long-time friends and colleagues.
“I consider Tim Scott a friend,” said Rep. David Schweikert, who is not yet sure if he will endorse this cycle. The Arizona Republican served with both Scott and DeSantis in the House. “Ron is someone we also used to hang out with. I have great respect for him.
Multiple GOP members said Trump and his team had not conducted any extensive congressional outreach yet. Some members said they received emails from Trump’s political operation but not any specific endorsement requests.
"I haven’t gotten a call from him, or Nikki Haley, or Gov. DeSantis or Mike Pompeo or Tim Scott or any of the other folks," said Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.). That seems to be true across the GOP conference. Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-Tenn.), who has also refrained from an endorsement so far, said he didn’t know anyone in his delegation who had gotten calls yet on the subject: "That decision will probably be made easier for me when the asks are made."
So far, Trump and his inner circle don’t seem to be sweating its lack of Hill endorsements. Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.), who endorsed Trump even before his third campaign became official, said he hasn’t been asked to dial up any of his on-the-fence colleagues but is ready to when asked: “I’ve never hidden it, and I'm not going to hide it now.”
And it’d be tough to find a House Republican more loyal to Trump than Van Drew: the New Jersey lawmaker switched parties in his first term as a Democrat after some personal wooing from Trump a week before his first impeachment vote.
“When I was going through a really difficult time, some real challenges, He was there,” Van Drew said. “Despite what people say about him, any time that guy’s looked me in the eye — rough around the edges as he may be — he’s always told me the truth.”
Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-Texas), is another GOP lawmaker who was quick to endorse Trump’s comeback bid, in part because of the former president’s support in own political career.
“He’s been very good to me. Loyalty matters to him, loyalty matters a lot to me,” Hunt said. After he lost his first race in 2020, Trump stuck by him and was critical to helping Hunt survive a 10-person primary two years later. “It made a huge difference in my race.”
Olivia Beavers, Meridith McGraw, Anthony Adragna and Daniella Diaz contributed to this report.
Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.), who endorsed Trump even before his third campaign became official, said he hasn’t been asked to dial up any of his on-the-fence colleagues but is ready to when asked.
Nature, Published online: 01 March 2023; doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00612-1
A method to directly stimulate a rodent’s heart shows how bodily states can affect emotions, and assessing the impact of NASA’s mission to move an asteroid.
President Joe Biden announced on Tuesday that he would nominate Julie Su to be his next Labor secretary, moving swiftly to fill a coming vacancy within his cabinet.
“It is my honor to nominate Julie Su to be our country’s next Secretary of Labor,” Biden said in a statement. “Julie has spent her life fighting to make sure that everyone has a fair shot, that no community is overlooked, and that no worker is left behind. Over several decades, Julie has led the largest state labor department in the nation, cracked down on wage theft, fought to protect trafficked workers, increased the minimum wage, created good-paying, high-quality jobs, and established and enforced workplace safety standards."
Su is currently the deputy Labor secretary and will be nominated to replace Marty Walsh, who is departing the administration to run the professional hockey players’ union. Su’s confirmation fight could be a tough one in the Senate; she was confirmed 50-47 to her slot in 2021 with no Republican support.
Asian American members of Congress had pushed hard for Su to lead the Labor Department at the beginning of the Biden administration before the president picked Walsh, whose impending departure prompted the lawmakers to again lobby for Su.
Influential labor unions like SEIU had also rallied around Su. Others in organized labor were generally supportive of her becoming Labor secretary, even if they stopped short of a formal endorsement.
Though Su quickly emerged as the frontrunner to succeed Walsh, the Biden administration did explore several alternatives. Among those were Sara Nelson, the leader of Association of Flight Attendants-CWA who had the backing of Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), whose committee will handle Biden’s nomination.
Sanders said in an interview that he wasn’t sure when Walsh was leaving but he’d try to move Su's nomination as soon as possible.
“She was not my first choice, but I've every confidence she's going to do a great job,” said Sanders, who had pushed for Nelson.
Su is already in line to become acting Labor secretary once Walsh leaves mid-March, and she has taken on an increased presence in recent weeks as the agency prepares for the handoff.
The two were scheduled to appear together midday Tuesday in Houston for a tour of a local apprenticeship program, alongside the heads of the Teamsters union and United Airlines.
Until recently, Su rarely traveled outside of the capital while Walsh was a frequent presence for the Biden administration across the country and regularly appeared with the president at high-profile events, according to a POLITICO review of the pair’s public schedules.
If confirmed, Su would be the Biden administration’s first AAPI Cabinet secretary, though she would join fellow AAPI Cabinet members Vice President Kamala Harris, U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai and Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Arati Prabhakar.
Before joining DOL, Su served in several top posts in California state government, including as labor secretary under Gov. Gavin Newsom. Prior to that she worked as a lawyer for low-wage and immigrant workers, including at a legal aid nonprofit in Los Angeles. During that span, she represented more than 70 undocumented Thai garment workers forced to work under sweatshop conditions — a case that gained widespread attention at the time and helped lead to the creation of new visa classes for victims of human trafficking or other crimes.
However, her tenure in California government was a major reason her confirmation to the number two job at DOL only scraped by on a party-line vote. Su’s opponents seized on her support for a controversial law classifying many gig workers as employees, instead of independent contractors, and overseeing the state’s unemployment system, which struggled to properly administer benefits during the pandemic.
Her record is likely to face even more scrutiny this go around, and she will have to answer for moves made by DOL during Walsh’s tenure. Among those moves will be the Biden administration’s handling of the freight rail labor standoff last year, in which Su played a central role.
The White House has had an imperfect record shepherding through key labor nominees through the closely-divided Senate. Last year, a trio of Democrats — West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin and Arizona Sens. Kyrsten Sinema and Mark Kelly — joined Republicans to sink David Weil’s candidacy to helm DOL’s Wage and Hour Division. And earlier this month, the president’s replacement for Weil — Jessica Looman — failed to advance out of the HELP committee.
The forthcoming nomination fight could also be impacted by Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who is receiving inpatient treatment at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for depression following a stroke during his election campaign. Fetterman’s staff recently said that he is progressing well, though it is uncertain when he will be able to return to Congress.
Biden nominates Julie Su as Labor secretary
An interview with Mark Robertson about the CAST/STM report on open access and China.
The post China and Open Access appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
An interview with Clara E. Mattei, the author of The Capital Order: How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism.
FreshRSS