Tag: no-latest

  • Smithsonian’s secretary to resign as Trump tries to rule the institution

    Smithsonian’s secretary to resign as Trump tries to rule the institution

    After a seven-year run marked most recently by attacks from the Trump administration, Lonnie Bunch III announced Tuesday that he was stepping down as secretary of the Smithsonian.

    The White House has escalated its criticism of how the Smithsonian presents American history and values, prompting concern from some about what they see as an assault on the institution’s autonomy and commendation from others for reining in an organization they view as overtaken by liberal bias.

    In an interview, Bunch, 73, said it was not the pressure that had led to his departure.

    “It was really just saying, now’s the time,” he said.

    “I’m a fighter,” he added.

    At the same time, he acknowledged the strain of the role.

    “I have to be honest, it has been stressful,” he said. “And at a certain point, I’d like to wake up in the morning and not look at my cell phone.”

    In a statement, Chief Justice John Roberts, who serves as the Smithsonian’s chancellor, said that Bunch had “pursued excellence in the telling of our nation’s story” and that the Smithsonian had “benefited greatly from his wisdom, vision and leadership.” The Smithsonian said Bunch was expected to depart at the end of the year.

    For more than a year, Bunch has tried to balance diplomacy and openness to criticism with a determination to resist a White House push to present what President Donald Trump calls “patriotic” history. Some admire how Bunch has managed to quietly hold the line against the White House. Others believe the Smithsonian has shown too much deference to Trump and even engaged in self-censorship.

    Last year, painter Amy Sherald withdrew her blockbuster show at the National Portrait Gallery over a disagreement about how the museum would display her portrait of a transgender Statue of Liberty.

    But Bunch said he had no regrets. “My goal has been to win, not to make me feel good,” he said. “To win — to protect the Smithsonian — there were times I would fight, make clear what the red lines were. And there were other times I let things go.”

    Bunch, a widely respected historian who previously oversaw the creation of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, said his next chapter would most likely include teaching or a fellowship.

    Created by Congress as a trust in 1846, the Smithsonian has long been viewed as independent of the executive branch. Its governing Board of Regents must now appoint a new leader in the face of withering attacks from the administration.

    The 17-person panel, led by Roberts, includes six members of Congress, split along party lines; nine private citizens; and Vice President JD Vance. The terms of three citizen members have recently expired, and the names of replacement nominees have not made it to Congress, an unusual holding pattern that appears to be evidence of the shadow war over control of the Smithsonian.

    In the short term, Bunch seemed to have sufficient board support to stay on. But he has indicated that he is weary of the fray and ready for some form of retirement.

    “When you’re Black in America, you’ve got to figure out how to get through, right?” he told the New York Times in May. “You’ve got to figure out how to build allies, when to stand firm, when to bang the table. So in some ways, all of that prepared me for this moment.”

    “But do I wish I was in it?” he continued, referring to scrutiny by the Trump administration. “Of course not. Good Lord, I wish that I was doing my goodbye tour.”

    Over nearly 40 years in various roles at the Smithsonian, Bunch developed a reputation as a soft-spoken diplomat adept at raising money and dealing with public officials. As the institution’s first Black secretary, he has at times been a forceful voice on issues of race, particularly after the 2017 white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Va., and in the wake of George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis in 2020.

    Trump did not pay much attention to Washington’s cultural organizations in his first term but has made them a focus of his second, including through his efforts to govern, close, and renovate the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. The Smithsonian has been forced to respond to White House demands or risk potential cuts to its $1 billion budget, which is largely funded by the federal government.

    Last month, in a letter to the board, Doug Burgum, the interior secretary, and Vince Haley, a senior White House adviser, made the stakes clear.

    “The Smithsonian enjoys support from executive departments and agencies,” the letter said. “Those executive departments and agencies cannot in good conscience continue to support the Smithsonian under current leadership.”

    The president’s attempt to overhaul the Smithsonian began last year with an executive order that accused the institution of promoting “narratives that portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive” and called for an end to spending on exhibitions or programs that “degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with federal law.”

    After the White House demanded that the Smithsonian turn over information about the content of its exhibitions, Bunch reasserted the institution’s independence while saying that materials had been submitted in an effort to be “transparent.”

    The board adopted a resolution that called for its 21 museums to review their content for partisanship or bias. But the administration began its own review of exhibitions, wall text, and social media to assess “tone, historical framing and alignment with American ideals.”

    Trump has been unrelenting in his criticism, posting on social media that “the Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been — Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future. We are not going to allow this to happen.”

    The president also announced online that he was dismissing the director of the National Portrait Gallery, Kim Sajet, calling her “a highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI.” (The Smithsonian insisted it controlled personnel matters, but Sajet resigned, citing the institution’s best interests.)

    The White House pressure reached a new pitch this year with a July 4 report about the National Museum of American History that accused its director of “radical activist ideology” and the museum of undermining “faith in American institutions.”

    Many historians expressed serious concern about the report, but some conservatives applauded it, joining Trump in arguing that exhibits had become overly focused on race, identity, and injustice.

    “Hardworking Americans don’t want their taxpayer dollars dedicated to Marxist indoctrination,” Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah) wrote on social media.

    After the report, Anthea Hartig, the museum’s director, came under fire at two congressional hearings. Then Trump ordered warning signs and exhibits installed to convey his view that the museum did not accurately reflect American history. The signs have yet to materialize.

    Bunch said it had been difficult to have his colleagues attacked by the administration. “I have always tried to protect people,” he said. “So I’ve always said, ‘Let the most of the weight fall on me. They don’t deserve it.’ We’re in a time when people are being hurt.”

    His priority has been “How do I always make sure that we put the Smithsonian in the strongest position?” Bunch said. “That we articulate what we believe in, the importance of nonpartisanship and scholarship?”

    When Bunch became the leader of the African American museum in 2005, that institution remained a distant dream.

    He worked with Congress to fund it and attracted big-name donors including Oprah Winfrey. He appointed Republicans such as Laura Bush and Colin Powell to the board and won support by arguing that the museum should recognize the horrors of slavery and the struggle for civil rights while celebrating historical Black achievements. Bunch said the museum needed to tell “the quintessential American story” of progress.

    It opened to great fanfare in 2016 and was the Smithsonian’s fourth-most-popular destination last year, with 1.6 million visitors. Bunch ascended to the Smithsonian’s top job in 2019.

    In the spring, Bunch said he was proud of what the Smithsonian had achieved under his leadership despite the barrage of Trump attacks. “Nothing can take that away,” he said. “So I’m trying to make sure I don’t let this moment steal my joy.”

    This week, he spoke of how important it was for the Smithsonian to continue to explore the country’s past in all its complexity. “Americans are an amazingly brave people, who have accomplished so much,” he said. “They’ve got to be brave enough to face their own history.”

    “To me, that is essential,” he continued. “And I will stand against wind and tide to prevent history from being erased, softened, and made palatable. That’s wrong.”

    This article originally appeared in the New York Times.

  • Lindsay Clancy’s attorney makes public plea for Trump pardon

    Lindsay Clancy’s attorney makes public plea for Trump pardon

    An attorney for Lindsay Clancy, the 36-year-old Massachusetts mother who admitted to killing her three children, said he hopes President Donald Trump would consider a pardon for his client after the high-profile murder case ended in a mistrial last week.

    “Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady, the type of person she is, what she’s been through, and consider a pardon,” Kevin Reddington said Tuesday on Good Morning America.

    The president cannot pardon state-level crimes, and Clancy’s case is being tried in state, not federal, court.

    Governors can grant clemency for state crimes; under pressure from Trump, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) in May reduced the state prison sentence of former county clerk and election conspiracy theorist Tina Peters, who was convicted for a scheme to copy her county’s election computer system.

    Asked about the trial and pardon request, the White House referred the Washington Post to Trump’s comments on Friday in which he described the case as a “horrible tragedy.”

    “It’s a terrible situation. Look, she did a horrible, horrible, thing. Can’t be worse,” he said. “But you’ll find out what the price to pay is. There’ll be a price. It’s going to be mental institution or jail or something.”

    Reddington also said he hoped he would “be able to work something out that would be acceptable to both sides,” after a mistrial was declared on Friday. Prosecutors have not said whether they will seek another trial.

    Clancy’s case captured the public’s attention and became a cultural touch point, putting postpartum mental health issues in the spotlight. She had said she killed her three children by strangling them at home in 2023, and the jury was asked to decide whether she should be held legally responsible for her actions. Reddington had argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time, which prosecutors disputed.

    The jury was dismissed after failing to reach a unanimous decision after deliberations hit nearly 40 hours following a trial that stretched more than six weeks.

  • Travel chaos at U.K. airports as over 600 flights canceled due to air traffic control issue

    Travel chaos at U.K. airports as over 600 flights canceled due to air traffic control issue

    LONDON — More than 600 flights were canceled on Tuesday due to a technical issue in Britain’s air traffic control system that caused disruptions at major airports across the U.K., the flight monitoring website Flightradar24 reported.

    Britain’s National Air Traffic Services said a problem had been identified in its flight processing system and engineers were urgently working on the issue, which affected flights across the U.K.

    In an update, it said it had “implemented a fix and our flight system is starting to recover.”

    At least 625 flights to and from U.K. airports, including London Heathrow, were canceled, affecting services operated by multiple airlines, including British Airways, EasyJet, KLM, and Lufthansa, according to Flightradar24.

    Some passengers took to social media to complain about being stuck on the tarmac for hours, before their flights were eventually canceled. Many expressed frustration about a lack of communication from airlines.

    The affected airports included Stansted and City in London, as well as those in Manchester, Birmingham, Gatwick, and Scotland. They warned passengers to check the status of their flight with their airline.

    Budget airline EasyJet said some of its flights were “unable to operate” and that the system failure caused “delays to flights across Europe.”

    Heathrow’s website showed that many short-haul flights departing for European destinations had been canceled or delayed.

    It was not immediately clear what caused the technical problem.

  • Veterans and Democrats intensify fight against Trump’s planned arch

    Veterans and Democrats intensify fight against Trump’s planned arch

    Veterans and Democrats are escalating efforts to prevent construction on President Donald Trump’s planned arch as the anticipated start of site work approaches, arguing the project is illegal and would diminish the experience of visiting nearby Arlington National Cemetery.

    VoteVets, a political organization aligned with Democratic veterans, on Tuesday launched a new messaging campaign to mobilize more veterans against the planned 250-foot-tall arch.

    In a 2½-minute video, which was first shared with the Washington Post, speakers call attention to the Trump administration’s stated plan to spend 20 hours per day building the arch over several years, which they note could conflict with military burials. The arch also would feature an observation deck for tourists to gaze at the city — and look out at the cemetery.

    “We don’t need tourists overlooking funerals. I’m just appalled,” Karen Meredith, a Gold Star mother whose son is buried at Arlington, said in the video.

    Home of the Brave, a political advocacy group whose leaders and advisers include prominent Trump critics such as commentator Bill Kristol and former Biden administration official Susan Rice, is also supporting the campaign. In an interview, people involved in the effort said they would start with social media posts this week and could expand to paid promotion.

    Meanwhile, Rep. Chellie Pingree (D., Maine) on Tuesday urged House Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) to sue and halt construction before it begins. Johnson and other Republican leaders have shown no interest to date in blocking Trump’s construction projects.

    “Congress has neither appropriated funding nor granted authority for this project under the Commemorative Works Act. The Administration is building it anyway, betting this body will do nothing to stop it,” wrote Pingree, the top Democrat on a House subcommittee that oversees funding for the Interior department. “I am asking you to take all necessary steps to file suit immediately, while there is still ground left to save.”

    Trump officials, emboldened by a Supreme Court ruling last week that allowed construction of the president’s ballroom to proceed, signaled Thursday that site work on the arch would begin this month.

    The court’s decision, which found preservationists seeking to stop Trump’s planned ballroom likely lacked standing, has become part of the administration’s construction strategy. Justice Department lawyers cited the ballroom ruling in asking a federal judge to dismiss a legal challenge brought by three military veterans and a historic preservationist, who are seeking to halt the triumphal arch.

    The high court’s ruling also sent advocacy groups scrambling to reconsider how to oppose the president’s construction projects. Some say they are reassessing whether they need to have other individuals or organizations join their challenges.

    Several legal experts pushed back on the Trump administration’s efforts to invoke the Supreme Court’s ballroom ruling to dismiss the arch and other projects.

    “The Justice Department would like to turn the ballroom decision into a universal immunity card for presidential construction projects,” said Greg Werkheiser, a co-founder of Cultural Heritage Partners, a law firm that has advised preservation organizations. “But the Supreme Court decided one standing question involving one plaintiff, one project, one factual record.”

    Trump has spoken for nearly a year about his plans to build a triumphal arch that will honor the nation’s 250th anniversary, vowing that it will be the largest triumphal arch in the world — about 86 feet taller than France’s famed Arc de Triomphe. The administration plans to erect it on federal parkland in Memorial Circle, a traffic roundabout near Arlington National Cemetery and just inside the city’s boundaries.

    Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said last week that construction would soon begin.

    “We are pleased to announce that after a very long wait (over 125 years!), we are preparing to start, over the next two-week period, the excavation work necessary for the Great Triumphal Arch and Military Observation Deck,” Burgum wrote on X.

    While Burgum’s announcement catalyzed a wave of new legal filings, Trump officials have argued that it is too soon for a federal judge to decide whether the project can be halted because Trump and other officials’ statements are not binding and the project has not been formally approved. The National Capital Planning Commission, a federal review panel that reviews the administration’s construction projects, has issued preliminary approval for the arch but has yet to award final approval.

    Trump officials also said last week that the work they plan to do soon at the arch site is for informational purposes.

    “This activity is not construction, or demolition in preparation for construction, of an arch,” Justice Department lawyers wrote in a court filing Friday.

    U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan ordered that the administration provide her with 48 hours’ notice “before engaging in any activity on Memorial Circle” other than on-site information gathering.

    Preservationists have stressed that an arch does not belong in the solemn corridor between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery.

    Charles Birnbaum, the founder of the Cultural Landscape Foundation, a Washington-based advocacy organization, invoked 1916 comments by Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., a landscape architect who helped design Washington.

    Olmsted said that “to build a monumental feature such as an arch would be a ‘slap in the face’ to the Lincoln Memorial,” Birnbaum said in the VoteVets video.

    Paul Eaton, a retired major general and VoteVets adviser, told the Post that he has heard from Republican veterans who are also opposed to a new structure towering over the cemetery. He called for veterans to submit comments to their lawmakers and to the National Capital Planning Commission.

    “There’s nothing partisan about what we’re doing right now. It has everything to do with how the United States honors its dead,” said Eaton, whose father’s remains are interred at the cemetery. “That’s why we are so focused on this particular vanity project on the part of Mr. Trump.”

  • Gloria Steinem told us where her feminism came from

    Gloria Steinem told us where her feminism came from

    Gloria Steinem spent 18 months in India in 1957 and 1958 that set the trajectory for the rest of her life. She credited those pivotal months with teaching her to listen, to organize from the ground up, and to understand “radical” as going to the root of a problem rather than to its extreme. In 2007, she told two Indian interviewers, “If you want people to listen, you have to listen to them. I believe I learned that in India.”

    Her connection to India began long before she got there. Her mother and paternal grandmother were Theosophists, or followers of a spiritual movement that borrowed from Hindu and Buddhist thought and treated India as the home of ancient wisdom. While a student at Smith College in the 1950s, Steinem studied with Vera Micheles Dean, a foreign policy scholar who wrote about India and was publicly accused of communist sympathies in 1954. During her junior year in Geneva in 1954-1955, she wrote a research paper on why the Communist Party of India had never become the country’s dominant party.

    Then she got engaged, and she did not want to be. “Marriage meant the end of life to me,” she said years later. The Chester Bowles Asian Fellowship in India in 1956, the year she graduated from Smith, saved her from the marriage.

    Smith students had spent years raising money to send graduating seniors to India as unofficial goodwill ambassadors to a country that had declared itself nonaligned in the Cold War. Chester Bowles, the former U.S. ambassador to India, gave a lecture and waived his fee; the money it raised went into two $1,000 scholarships the students named after him, each less than half what they estimated a fellow would need to live on. They sent two students anyway. Steinem was one.

    She landed in Bombay in February 1957 expecting one country and finding another. A tall, turbaned man stooped into the plane and turned toward her. “I rose, sure that he was going to begin a speech of ‘Welcome to India, mystic heart of Asia, land of ancient cultures.’ He namasthed politely before me” — greeted her with palms pressed together — “took out a shiny red insecticide bomb, and said, ‘Stand still while I spray you.’” India, she wrote in her fellowship reports, “shatters Western romantic illusions with little ceremony.”

    She was initially tasked with explaining American culture and excellence to Indian students. However, at Miranda House, a women’s college at Delhi University, her classmates ended up asking her to explain American politics instead. In one class, she reported, “we were asked the difference between the U.S. interference in Guatemala and the Soviet action in Hungary” — the CIA-backed coup of 1954 and the Soviet crushing of the Hungarian uprising in 1956. It “nearly shocked us into silence,” she wrote.

    After the semester, when she could have gone home like most of the students around her, she chose to stay. She went first to the Himalayan foothills, to a study camp run by followers of M. N. Roy, an Indian former communist who had broken with Moscow. That is where she absorbed the idea that “radical” means going to the root of a problem, not to its extreme.

    In the fall of 1957 she traveled south, to the ashram of Vinoba Bhave, a disciple of Gandhi who walked from village to village asking landowners to give land to the landless — and she found it nearly empty. Caste riots had broken out in Ramnad, a rural district in what was then Madras State, after the murder of a Dalit leader. The government had sealed the district and barred reporters. Teams from the ashram had walked around the roadblocks anyway.

    She joined a team because it was short a woman. For a week they walked between villages. At night people came out and sat around a kerosene lamp in circles of six or twenty or fifty and told what had happened to them — burnings, murders, rapes. The teams listened. Steinem later called it “the ancient and modern magic of groups in which anyone may speak in turn, everyone must listen, and consensus is more important than time.”

    She had no word for it at the time, but a decade later American feminists called it consciousness-raising, as they sat together and discussed their experiences in their everyday lives as women — soon coming to the conclusion that the challenges they faced were largely attributable to systemic inequalities.

    Made By History sponsors. FOR USE ON MADE BY HISTORY STORIES ONLY.Inquirer Staff

    Fifteen years after Ramnad, the first issue of Ms., the feminist magazine Steinem famously founded, had an eight-armed goddess on the cover holding a typewriter, a steering wheel, a frying pan. Steinem said the image “had come out of my Indian past.” The masthead listed everyone alphabetically. The editors met in a room she called “comfortable and shoe-less,” and set their own salaries around a table in a Chinese restaurant, with the highest capped at three times the lowest.

    She showed up in India with every assumption a white American in the 1950s could have, then spent sixty years being corrected and saying so out loud. When she went back to India in the late 1970s, she met Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay, who had led Gandhi’s national women’s organization, and told her: “Well, of course, my dears. We taught him everything he knew.” Steinem repeated that story and others from her time in India for decades.

    Here was a young woman whose assumptions were challenged, and who still wrote down her honest reflections. Steinem kept doing that her whole life — approaching new ideas, learning from her mistakes, adapting. For fifty years she acknowledged the global influences that shaped her, especially at home, in a country that mostly ignored them.

    Rashida Shafiq is a historian of American foreign relations and women’s history. Her book manuscript, “The Method and the Machinery: Gloria Steinem, India, and the Cold War Making of American Feminism,” is in the works.

    Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of The Inquirer.

  • As Social Security fund runs dry, some Republicans say it’s time to raise taxes

    As Social Security fund runs dry, some Republicans say it’s time to raise taxes

    For decades, Washington has replayed the same fight over taming the soaring national debt: Democrats cite a need for more taxes. Republicans refuse. And anyone who suggests cutting the biggest source of spending — federal retirement benefits — gets attacked.

    But a coming crisis in Social Security appears to be pushing at least a few Republicans off the GOP’s long-standing pledge never to raise taxes.

    This summer, Sen. Bernie Moreno (R., Ohio) joined Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) in proposing to raise the payroll tax cap so people with higher incomes pay more into the program. Now the idea is emerging as an acceptable fix among other GOP lawmakers, including Rep. Tom Cole (Oklahoma), the influential chairperson of the House Appropriations Committee.

    “We’ve got too many people who say, ‘Well, we have to stay within the current income level or stay at the current tax rate,’” Cole said in an interview. “I’m willing to look at the tax rate. I am willing to raise the amount of income through tax.”

    The rare GOP concessions on taxes come as lawmakers begin to confront a Social Security shortfall so large and so imminent that the party’s traditional demand for curtailing benefits is unlikely to suffice. In just six years, millions of Social Security recipients will absorb a 22% cut in benefits unless lawmakers provide an immediate infusion of nearly $500 billion.

    “Twenty or thirty years ago,” when the shortfall was far in the future, “you could come up with a straight-faced solution” that solved the problem entirely by cutting future benefits, said Charles Blahous, a senior research strategist at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center who served from 2010 to 2015 as the Republican public trustee for Social Security.

    Now the problem is so big and urgent, Blahous said, “I don’t think you can look at it with a straight face and not do all of the above.”

    Grover Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform and the longtime enforcer of Republican anti-tax orthodoxy, dismissed the crack in party discipline, arguing that Republicans should stick to demanding spending cuts. Otherwise, he said, they risk infuriating voters already angry about the high cost of living.

    “When Republicans say no to tax increases, they win. When they say yes to tax increases, they lose,” Norquist said. “They don’t get spending cuts — at all. And, they get smeared in the next election.”

    But Cole, at least, said he thinks the political blowback from Social Security benefit cuts would be far worse than a comprehensive solution that includes raising taxes.

    “I love Grover. But … you’ve got to deal with Social Security,” Cole said. “And believe me, you’ll have a lot bigger problem if it goes bankrupt than you’ll have keeping it whole, because people will feel cheated.”

    Created during the Great Depression, Social Security provides monthly cash benefits to more than 70 million Americans. It is the single largest program in the $7.4 trillion federal budget, paying out $1.7 trillion this year, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. (Medicare is a close second at $1.3 trillion.)

    The program is funded by a payroll tax on wages up to a “cap” of $184,500 a year, with workers and employers each paying 6.2%. Workers who pay into the system can receive monthly checks as early as age 62, though the full retirement age is 67.

    For years, annual tax collections exceeded the cost of benefits, allowing the program to amass a surplus known as the Social Security trust fund. As the baby boom generation retired, however, the math flipped: Social Security now pays out far more than it collects and is draining the trust fund to make up the difference.

    The trust fund is projected to run dry in 2032. At that point, Social Security would have to rely solely on incoming tax collections — meaning monthly checks would shrink by $440 on average unless Congress acts, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

    Closing the shortfall would require $459 billion in cuts or fresh revenue in 2033 alone, according to the BPC — and the sum would grow larger every year.

    That relentless math persuaded Moreno, a former car dealership owner who rode into office with President Donald Trump’s endorsement in 2024, to break ranks with his party on tax hikes. In his proposal with Warren, Moreno calls for eliminating the payroll tax cap so highly compensated workers pay the tax on their entire income.

    “Why should a middle-class nurse pay a larger share of her paycheck than a wealthy corporate lawyer?” Moreno and Warren wrote in an op-ed for the New York Times, noting that one recent poll found that 62% of Republicans support lifting the cap. “This is doubly unfair in an economy in which top earners’ wages, over time, have pulled far ahead of those of the average worker.”

    Moreno declined an interview request. His spokesperson Reagan McCarthy said in an email: “Sen. Moreno promised Ohioans he would fight for them in DC and make sure they get the benefits they were promised and that’s exactly why he’s leading this effort.”

    Removing the cap without increasing benefits for high-earning workers would close more than half the program’s shortfall, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group focused on deficit reduction. Blahous and others have cautioned against that approach, saying it would sever the connection between contributions and benefits that makes Social Security different from — and more popular than — other social welfare programs.

    Uncapping the payroll tax alone would push the top marginal federal tax rate over 50%, according to the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank.

    Some Democrats would go further. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) argues not only for lifting the payroll cap but also for taxing the investment income of wealthy households and closing a loophole that lets business owners shrink their personal tax bills.

    That proposal, which would fall entirely on the backs of the wealthy, would raise enough cash to fully fund Social Security for at least 75 years, according to a 2023 estimate by the program’s chief actuary.

    The historic link between contributions and benefits makes changing Social Security politically perilous. That’s why many in Congress want negotiations to be outsourced to a bipartisan commission or advisory board.

    Cole has introduced one of several proposals to form such a panel. He argues that more tax revenue, including from raising the payroll tax cap, “ought to certainly be on the table” alongside adjustments that would reduce future spending, such as raising the retirement age.

    A third GOP lawmaker, Rep. Lloyd K. Smucker of Pennsylvania, has also said he sees more tax revenue as part of a Social Security fix. “You’ll probably have to do something on the payroll half of the money being paid into the system,” Smucker told Roll Call last week.

    Smucker said lawmakers should also consider means testing, so benefits are reduced for the wealthy while low-income retirees are protected. Smucker’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

    Though raising taxes is unpopular among Republicans, it has long been part of bipartisan plans to solve the Social Security puzzle. In 1983, President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, and House Speaker Tip O’Neill, a Democrat, saved the program from its last bout with insolvency, agreeing to a mix of solutions that included increasing payroll taxes and gradually raising the retirement age.

    In 2005, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) argued for raising the payroll cap and trimming benefits. Weeks later, President George W. Bush said he was open to a “variety of options,” though his plan to curtail future benefits for all but low-income retirees and divert some tax dollars to new private retirement accounts was dismissed by Congress.

    And in 2010, several Republicans on a commission formed by President Barack Obama voted in favor of a debt-reduction plan that included raising the payroll cap, raising the retirement age to 69 and trimming benefits for wealthy retirees. The plan offered by the so-called Bowles-Simpson commission never received a vote in Congress.

    Sen. Mike Crapo (R., Idaho) was among the commission’s yes votes. Crapo now serves as chairperson of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over both taxes and Social Security.

    At a committee hearing last month, Crapo said the Bowles-Simpson plan “has informed subsequent Social Security solvency discussions.” His office did not respond to questions about his current position on tax hikes.

    Another hallmark of Social Security reform has been deep involvement by the White House. Cole said he has urged Trump to take on the hard work of fixing the program, calling it a potential “crowning achievement.” Since Trump is not running for office again, he could “do it with no political risk,” Cole said, adding, “I think he’ll get enormous political credit for it.”

    But while Trump has warned Republicans not to cut “a single penny from Medicare or Social Security,” he has not said how he would raise the vast sums needed to bolster the programs’ deteriorating finances.

    White House spokesperson Liz Huston did not respond to questions about fixing the program, saying via email only that “there will be zero reductions to Social Security payments” under Trump’s leadership.

  • Charles views the Bayeux Tapestry, this time as king

    Charles views the Bayeux Tapestry, this time as king

    LONDON — The last time King Charles III of Britain saw the Bayeux Tapestry, in September 1987, he had to travel to its home in northern France. Accompanied by Diana, Princess of Wales, the then prince marveled at the over 900-year-old embroidery depicting William the Conqueror’s invasion of England in 1066, and he impressed local residents with a brief speech in French about its impact.

    On Sept. 2, almost 40 years later, Charles got to view the tapestry in notably different circumstances — now as king, just like the tapestry’s main characters, and this time without having to leave his home soil. Instead, he went to the British Museum in London, accompanied by Queen Camilla, to witness the tapestry’s return to Britain for the first time since it was made.

    The tapestry is not just a historic artifact, but a personal reminder of “what I like to think of as the French side of my family’s history,” Charles joked during an eight-minute speech at the museum. He also spoke of his joy at seeing the 220-foot-long embroidery in London, where it is the focus of a blockbuster exhibition that opened on Thursday.

    “The tapestry’s story is one of ambition and uncertainty, of oaths and journeys, of ships, councils, kings, comets, and consequences,” Charles said, calling it “70 meters of memory and artistry.”

    The British Museum hopes that attendance for the show, which runs through July 11, will rival the 1.6 million visitors who flocked to its “Treasures of Tutankhamen” exhibition in 1972.

    Before the speeches, British Museum curators had walked Charles along the tapestry and pointed out key scenes, including one showing the coronation of Harold Godwinson, England’s last Anglo-Saxon monarch, and another depicting Godwinson’s death at the Battle of Hastings. In that scene, the dying monarch clasps an arrow that has thwacked his eye.

    Although the tapestry shows a time of conflict between France and England, the recent event was a sedate affair, bringing together President Emmanuel Macron of France and Prime Minister Andy Burnham of Britain and their wives, alongside Charles and Camilla.

    The tapestry recounts a conflict, Charles said during his speech, “yet here it is today, nearly 1,000 years later, as a precious symbol of trust at a time when trust seems sadly to be in short supply between nations.”

    Macron also spoke at the museum, saying how the Norman invasion depicted in the tapestry “was just the start” of events that have entwined Britain and France, including “marriages, alliances, inheritances, and successions” as well as shared cultural artifacts.

    The tapestry’s reappearance in Britain was a long time coming. Embroidered in the 11th century, most likely in Canterbury, England, it was later moved to Bayeux, France, where it eventually was listed in a 1476 inventory of the town’s cathedral.

    Over the past 70 years, British officials have repeatedly tried to borrow the artwork — including for the coronation of Elizabeth II, Charles’ mother — but French art experts insisted that it was too fragile to travel.

    That situation changed in 2018, when Macron announced that France had agreed to lend the tapestry to Britain as a gesture of friendship between the two nations. The loan has been able to go ahead thanks to techniques developed by conservation experts to ensure that the tapestry could travel to London.

    Last year, Macron said in a speech at the British Museum that Charles had been a key figure behind the scenes encouraging the project.

    Charles has long been a supporter of arts and culture, and as a prince, he often discussed his love of traditional art and architecture in interviews. In 2004, he co-founded an academy for traditional arts, whose short courses include training in weaving and embroidery. And his foundation, in collaboration with Chanel, runs specialist embroidery courses aimed at students who want to work in high-end ateliers.

    The royal has also added stitches to several artworks inspired by the tapestry. In 2000, he sewed the final stitch for the New World Tapestry, an attempt to depict British colonialism in the Americas that has since been accused of perpetuating racist stereotypes.

    In 2012, on a visit to Alderney, one of the Channel Islands, Charles contributed a few stitches to a work of embroidery that aims to continue the Bayeux Tapestry’s story beyond its current end point depicting William the Conqueror’s successful invasion of England.

    Kate Russell, a founder of that tapestry project, said in an interview that during his visit Charles urged people to go and see the original tapestry in Bayeux. She also said it was obvious why he would love the tapestry given the story it relays: “You can’t be a member of the English royal family and not have a sense of the ties to those events.”

    Toward the end of Charles’ speech, the king switched to French and pointed out that the tapestry’s final scenes were missing. (They were likely worn away over time.)

    “It falls to each generation to add its own stitch to the fabric of our shared history,” Charles said, “from this evening and into many generations to come.”

    This article originally appeared in the New York Times.

  • U.K. government bans goods from Israeli settlements and accuses settlers of ‘ethnic cleansing’

    U.K. government bans goods from Israeli settlements and accuses settlers of ‘ethnic cleansing’

    LONDON — The United Kingdom on Tuesday banned trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, where it says “settler terrorists” are carrying out “ethnic cleansing” of Palestinians, in a significant toughening of Britain’s stance toward a longtime ally.

    France and Canada announced they would take similar action in an attempt to prevent expanding settlements and growing violence from making it impossible to establish a future Palestinian state.

    Israel responded angrily and said it would close the British consulate in Jerusalem.

    Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband said the U.K. will ban imports of all goods from the settlements and bar companies from providing services for the settlements, including financing, construction, infrastructure, real estate, and advertising.

    “I do not believe the British people want us supporting the occupation by accepting products from settlements in our shops and supermarkets,” Miliband said.

    In a joint statement, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said settlement expansion and settler violence in the West Bank “pose a direct and urgent threat” to the two-state solution. They said they decided to act “before it is too late.”

    The economic impact is likely to be limited, since the settlements produce only a small amount of largely agricultural exports. But the move is a symbolic expression of displeasure with Israel by some of its closest allies, and it offers a new sign of the Israeli government’s growing isolation as a result of the Gaza war.

    Miliband said that he feels “a deep sense of shame about what has unfolded in Palestine under the eyes of the international community.”

    “We will not acquiesce in the destruction of the two-state solution,” he said.

    Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar condemned the “despicable” move. He said Israel would expel U.K. representatives from a joint military center monitoring the Gaza ceasefire and end U.K. training of the Palestinian Authority’s security forces in the West Bank. In addition, Israel barred entry to a dozen British lawmakers and other U.K. citizens whom Sa’ar said were “involved in antisemitic and anti-Israel activity.”

    Settlements have expanded under Netanyahu

    Under the ultranationalist government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, settlement construction in the West Bank — seized by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war — has surged. Netanyahu’s government views the West Bank as the biblical and historical homeland of the Jewish people and is opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state.

    The international community overwhelmingly considers such construction to be illegal. Britain and other countries have voiced particular concern about the E1 settlement project approved by Israel, which would effectively cut the territory in two.

    There have been marked increases in attacks by settlers on Palestinians, evictions from Palestinian towns, Israeli military operations, and checkpoints that choke freedom of movement, as well as several Palestinian attacks on Israelis.

    “The British government agrees that there is ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in areas of the West Bank, perpetrated by settler terrorists,” Miliband said. He said there had been “houses bulldozed, roads and public infrastructure destroyed, families displaced from their homes.”

    The ban on trade will be in place in six to nine months, Miliband said. He said Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Poland, Portugal, and Sweden have pledged to “support further action.”

    The Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium, Spain, and Norway have either banned goods from settlements or are in the process of doing so, he said.

    Miliband also tightened Britain’s embargo on weapons sales to Israel for use in Gaza to include arms “that materially contribute to the occupation” of Palestinian territories.

    Move follows U.K. recognition of a Palestinian state

    Britain recognized Palestinian statehood last year in an attempt to revive dwindling efforts to achieve a two-state solution.

    In a change of Britain’s position, Miliband said Tuesday that the U.K. regards Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, and not just the settlements, as illegal.

    The new position is likely to be welcomed by many Labour voters and lawmakers, who have urged the government to go further in sanctioning Israel and supporting the Palestinians.

    But some expressed concern that the sanctions could boost support for Netanyahu, who is facing a tough battle for reelection in October, or lead to attacks on British Jews. The U.K.’s chief rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, said it was “a dark day for British Jews.”

    Opposition Conservative Party foreign affairs spokesperson Tom Tugendhat said that “turning Israel into a pariah will risk sectarian division in our own country and risk a further rise in antisemitic violence on our own streets.”

    Announcement sparks anger in Israel

    Before Miliband’s announcement, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s hard-line public security minister and a settler leader, called on Netanyahu to recognize Argentina’s claim to the Falkland Islands, a British overseas territory in the South Atlantic known in Argentina as the Malvinas.

    Israeli President Isaac Herzog called the ban “a grave miscalculation, a decision that will fall on the wrong side of history.

    “In the current context, it would be a gross interference in the democratic elections of a sovereign nation,” he said.

    The move was also criticized by the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, a longtime supporter of the settlements, who said that it was “discrimination against the Jewish people.” He said the U.K. could face “repercussions or retaliations” from the U.S. if it imposed the sanctions.

    Several U.S. states have laws banning contracts or investments with businesses that boycott Israeli firms, including those based in the West Bank.

    Burnham’s office said he spoke with U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday and set out “the U.K.’s commitment to working toward peace and security in the region” and achieving a two-state solution. There was no word on how Trump responded.

    Miliband, whose parents came to the U.K. as refugees from the Nazis, told lawmakers he spoke “as a proud British Jew” and supporter of Israel.

    “Our argument is not with the people of Israel, with whom the U.K. has unshakable bonds,” Miliband said. “Our argument is with the conduct of its government.”

  • With more modes of speech, why aren’t we freely communicating?

    With more modes of speech, why aren’t we freely communicating?

    We have never had so many ways to speak. Yet rarely has speaking felt so fraught.

    A defining feature of this moment in history is its extraordinary capacity for speech. Social media offers direct pathways to audiences. Generative tools can now help us refine our own voices. The barriers to speaking have never been lower.

    But the expansion of our ability to speak has not necessarily strengthened the conditions for free expression or led to more meaningful exchange. The same technologies that connect us to vast audiences also keep us within communities of shared views. And even as avenues for expression have multiplied, many Americans feel less certain that they can speak freely.

    New research from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and SSRS found that across activities from journalism and art to protest and political expression online, barely half of Americans believe they can exercise their expressive rights freely.

    Just 54% say they feel “very” or “mostly” free to express their political views without government interference or punishment. Asked to think back 10 years, 72% said they had felt that free. Looking ahead 10 years, only 42% expect to. While some among us may feel this more or less acutely than others, the pessimistic outlook holds across a host of different demographic and partisan groups.

    There may be more ways to speak than ever, but Americans are increasingly uncertain about participating in our nation’s public conversation. This should alarm us all.

    The First Amendment protects our right to speak, but free expression also depends on venues where people can actually use that right. In recent decades, we have invested enormously in technologies that increase the quantity of expression while neglecting the places — whether civic institutions, public spaces, or so-called third places — where we cultivate social trust. The spaces where constitutional rights grow into habits of forthrightness, curiosity, listening, and mutual respect; where we learn to recognize one another as participants in a shared civic life.

    The First Amendment gives us the framework. It’s up to us to foster the spaces where it comes to life.

    Critical infrastructure

    Our civic institutions are part of the critical infrastructure of free expression. They create opportunities for discovery and encounters that enrich our understanding. Museums invite us into the complexity of the past, revealing the stories, context, and perspectives that give history texture and meaning. Universities bring competing ideas into conversation and subject them to scrutiny, an aspiration that has always been messier in practice than in principle. Libraries give us the freedom to follow our curiosity, pursue knowledge on our own terms, and venture beyond the familiar. Where they still exist, local newsrooms surface stories that might otherwise go untold.

    None of these institutions gets it right every time. But their value lies partly in creating environments that welcome people in while making room for the friction that meaningful inquiry inevitably produces: disagreement, challenge, surprise, and sometimes a change of mind.

    The same technologies that connect us to vast audiences also keep us within communities of shared views.

    The information economy generated enormous investment in the technologies that have reshaped our civic life. But investment in the institutions that help us make sense of these changes has not kept pace.

    Philanthropy has an important role in this work. It can invest where markets won’t and governments can’t. It can absorb the risk that comes with genuine experimentation in new approaches to civic learning and engagement. It can identify and bring to scale emerging, community-led models that renew the institutions, relationships, and face-to-face experiences that remain essential to democratic life, even as more of our lives move online. And it can help institutions lower barriers and welcome new audiences.

    A new partnership between the National Constitution Center and Knight Foundation is one effort to put these ideas into practice. On Wednesday, the center will host its inaugural First Amendment Day, inviting visitors to explore our expressive freedoms through history, conversation, creativity, and civic engagement. They will have opportunities to exercise their own rights, encounter the perspectives of others, and join conversations about the changing landscape of speech being shaped by new technologies. Later that evening, Govs. Josh Shapiro (D., Pa.) and Spencer Cox (R., Utah) will discuss free expression and civic dialogue at the Kimmel Center. And to ensure this special programming is available to as many people as possible, admission is free to all.

    The goal is not simply to teach what the First Amendment says, but to practice the culture it makes possible.

    Philadelphia has a rich history of civic discourse and debate. It is here that these ideas took root. The Civic Decade ahead, as we celebrate the 250th anniversaries of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, offers us a chance to invest anew in our institutions of self-government. Building a culture of free expression should be part of that work.

    We have more ways to speak than any generation before us. We must be just as ambitious about nurturing the spaces that remind us not to take our First Amendment rights for granted.

    Julie Silverbrook is the chief content and learning officer of the National Constitution Center. John Sands is vice president of information and society at the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

  • While our country mourned the thousands dead in New York, we Arab Americans also had to mourn our place in American society

    While our country mourned the thousands dead in New York, we Arab Americans also had to mourn our place in American society

    Like every American who lived that fateful day, I can vividly remember where I was on Sept. 11, 2001.

    I was in the middle of chairing a hearing as a city civil service commissioner when my administrative assistant burst into the room. She told me a plane had hit the World Trade Center in New York. I postponed the hearing immediately.

    But unlike millions of Americans who were frozen in place watching the heartbreaking visuals of the second plane hitting the second tower, I was already on the phone with the Philadelphia Police Department, the Philadelphia School District, and the Human Relations Commission.

    I knew there would be an immediate backlash against the Arab and Muslim American community.

    Like every other minority community in this country’s history, our community knew too well the playbook that is deployed following a tragedy. The provocations from talking heads on television, the incendiary questions expedited by the broader 24/7 media landscape, even the inflammatory comments made by elected officials — the very people who were supposed to protect us.

    I could see it coming. In America, we always search for an enemy to blame, and sadly, on Sept. 11, 2001, Arab and Muslim Americans were the ones unfairly blamed.

    In those first few days, thanks in part to our partners in law enforcement and our wider community outreach, we managed to head off the worst of it for the Arab and Muslim American community in Philadelphia. We had some threats and attacks on stores, and some people were targeted with violence. But even though that was horrific and traumatizing, in comparison to others, in Philadelphia our community was surprisingly fortunate.

    Across the country, Arab American businesses and mosques were literally burned to the ground. Arab Americans were arrested, and some were held for a long period of time without charge. Other Arab Americans — and those perceived to be Arab — faced targeted violence and, horrifically, a few people were murdered.

    These serious hate crimes and attacks by both lone actors and, sadly, also the government, were widely underreported by the media, then and now. Our community still feels that pain every day.

    We weren’t even given the time to mourn the tragedy ourselves, including the many victims on 9/11 who themselves were Arab and Muslim Americans.

    While our country mourned the thousands dead in New York, we as Arab Americans also had to mourn our place in American society, which has never recovered. It was the way the country changed after 9/11 that has been so difficult for our community. It was a transformation that hit every American, but it felt targeted at us.

    The response to 9/11 fundamentally shifted what the U.S. stood for. We were dragged into two devastating wars, first in Afghanistan, and then in Iraq. Those conflicts took hundreds of thousands of innocent Afghan and Iraqi lives and thousands of our own soldiers.

    Then came the Transportation Security Administration, a government organization that utilized racial profiling in what never once felt like “random” checks.

    The Patriot Act expanded government spying into the private lives of all Americans, but particularly Arab and Muslim Americans, who faced extraordinary government surveillance.

    Other law enforcement agencies followed, with their own prejudiced practices, especially the New York Police Department, which started sending undercover agents into mosques to record worship services. Their “Demographic Unit” went to gatherings, restaurants, and clubs to survey the community. They made lists of our businesses and started infiltrating student groups.

    On top of that, the federal government started the NSEERS program, forcing thousands of men visiting the U.S. from Muslim-majority countries to be fingerprinted and registered like criminals. No terrorists were found among those profiled.

    We also now know the extent to which the government used torture against mainly Arab and Muslim prisoners at black sites, and most notoriously at Guantánamo Bay. We now know that many of those prisoners were innocent and had nothing to do with 9/11, let alone al-Qaeda. That didn’t stop the CIA and its contractors, all of whom escaped justice for their role in the torture program, from using waterboarding and extraordinary rendition on these prisoners, all while denying their basic rights.

    After 9/11, if you were Arab or Muslim, there was no such thing as being innocent until proven guilty anymore.

    Even now, more than a dozen men are still sitting in Guantánamo Bay without ever facing a trial, due in part to the very torture program the government once tried to say was necessary.

    And in the decades since, some things have gotten worse.

    There continue to be travel bans targeting people from predominantly Arab and Muslim nations.

    Groups in places like Texas are trying to ban Sharia law — a grotesque, Islamophobic distortion that pretends Sharia is a legal system challenging the Constitution rather than a set of guidelines for moral and ethical conduct in a religious context.

    And attempts to silence and censure Arab American voices, particularly on issues like Palestine, continue at universities, corporations, and state capitals across the country.

    It hasn’t all been dark, though.

    The pressure our community has faced since 2001 has made us stronger in a lot of ways. It forced us to build real, lasting ties with our religious allies, especially our Jewish and Christian neighbors. That’s how the Interfaith Center of Philadelphia got its start.

    The author (seated at right) watches Gov. Tom Wolf sign “The Pledge to Combat Bigotry,” a public commitment to speak out against bigotry toward Muslims and Arabs, in Harrisburg on Sept. 30, 2015.Courtesy of Marwan Kreidie

    It solidified our political presence, too.

    Now, we have more leaders than ever standing up for our inclusion in the city and the state. Many elected leaders have rallied to support us, and our community has the greatest number of people elected to local, state, and federal offices we’ve ever seen.

    By working together with allies to make the U.S. freer, and to protect the importance of what it means to be an American citizen, Sept. 11 showed the resilience of our community.

    I could not be prouder of that.

    Twenty-five years ago, even as those terrorists tried to break us, and others inside our own country tried to divide us, America prevailed.

    We nearly lost our democracy on that fateful day, as our democratic system was hijacked in the name of “security.” But we, as Americans, came together.

    And today we must continue to live the words of the great Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

    Marwan Kreidie teaches political science at West Chester University and is the executive director of the Philadelphia Arab-American Development Corps.