Connect with us

News

Coalition government, American style

Published

on

Coalition government, American style

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

The dysfunction in the majority party in the US House of Representatives was as clear as Saturday’s final vote on $60bn in military aid for Ukraine: of the 218 Republicans in the House, most (112) voted against desperately needed funding.

That meant Mike Johnson, the accidental Republican Speaker, had to rely on the opposition Democrats to get the aid legislation passed. And so he did: Although there was no indication that Johnson actually worked in concert with the House Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries, all 210 Democrats who were present in Washington on Saturday backed the bill.

After nearly 18 months of legislative ineptitude on Capitol Hill, it is worth pausing to celebrate a rare moment of bipartisan normality. The aid is months overdue — and may yet be too late, with reports of nearly 40 per cent of Ukraine’s electrical generation capacity destroyed by Russian munitions that could have been stopped by American-supplied anti-missile systems.

Advertisement

Regardless, for a moment the centre held, and those who hoped that old fashioned legislative horse-trading would eventually triumph — particularly the legislative horse trader-in-chief, Joe Biden — have been vindicated.

But is there any hope that Saturday’s victory is a sign of reason regaining the upper hand in Washington at long last? There are some indications that Johnson’s conversion on the road to Mar-a-Lago could mark a break from the recent past.

Most importantly, Donald Trump, who had vocally opposed any new aid to Ukraine for months, was unable — or at least unwilling — to stop Johnson. The Republican Speaker has sworn fealty to the former president, but Johnson struck at a moment of maximum weakness for the party’s standard bearer, stuck as he is in a dingy Manhattan courtroom for days on end, distracted by his own finances and legal jeopardy.

Johnson was also able to placate congressional Democrats, who proved unwilling to do deals with his backslapping predecessor, Kevin McCarthy. McCarthy’s prevarications on the biggest issues of the day — condemning Trump after the January 6 riots, for example, only to reverse course when it became clear he could not become Speaker without him — infuriated even Democrats inclined towards bipartisanship.

And perhaps most importantly, Johnson himself is an ideologue — but not a cynical partisan. Ideological opponents have been known to get on famously in Washington as long as there is trust across the aisle. Boston liberal Tip O’Neill, who held the House speakership for much of the 1980s, developed a modus vivendi with Ronald Reagan, his fierce ideological opponent, that allowed Reagan to get much of his conservative agenda through Congress during his presidency.

Advertisement

But keeping the bipartisan peace asks too much of both Republicans and Democrats, I fear. Democrats would have to agree to vote repeatedly and consistently to keep Johnson in his job — the first test of which could come in the next few days.

Under current House rules, the small band of Republican arsonists who brought down McCarthy are poised to do the same with Johnson because of his Ukraine apostasy. Jefferies, the Democratic leader, has indicated he could come to Johnson’s rescue this time. But does anyone believe a Republican House Speaker can stay in power for long without a majority comprised of members of his own caucus? That is too much to ask of Jefferies, particularly in an election year.

Similarly, political Washington underestimates Trump at its peril. After January 6, most of the Republican establishment gave up the former president for dead. And yet a year later, he regained a singular power over his party that may have briefly dissipated while he is distracted in court, but is in no way gone.

Indeed, it is a power that even his opponents must admire: sitting presidents can rarely control legislators in their own party in the way the ex-president can. Trump has no record of allowing his party to do deals with Biden and the Democrats — and he’s not about to start now.

So let us celebrate a rare victory for the reasonable on Capitol Hill. But let’s also realise it’s unlikely to happen again any time soon.

Advertisement

News

Video: F.A.A. Ignored Safety Concerns Prior to Collision Over Potomac, N.T.S.B. Says

Published

on

Video: F.A.A. Ignored Safety Concerns Prior to Collision Over Potomac, N.T.S.B. Says

new video loaded: F.A.A. Ignored Safety Concerns Prior to Collision Over Potomac, N.T.S.B. Says

transcript

transcript

F.A.A. Ignored Safety Concerns Prior to Collision Over Potomac, N.T.S.B. Says

The National Transportation Safety Board said that a “multitude of errors” led to the collision between a military helicopter and a commercial jet, killing 67 people last January.

“I imagine there will be some difficult moments today for all of us as we try to provide answers to how a multitude of errors led to this tragedy.” “We have an entire tower who took it upon themselves to try to raise concerns over and over and over and over again, only to get squashed by management and everybody above them within F.A.A. Were they set up for failure?” “They were not adequately prepared to do the jobs they were assigned to do.”

Advertisement
The National Transportation Safety Board said that a “multitude of errors” led to the collision between a military helicopter and a commercial jet, killing 67 people last January.

By Meg Felling

January 27, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Families of killed men file first U.S. federal lawsuit over drug boat strikes

Published

on

Families of killed men file first U.S. federal lawsuit over drug boat strikes

President Trump speaks as U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth looks on during a meeting of his Cabinet at the White House in December 2025.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Relatives of two Trinidadian men killed in an airstrike last October are suing the U.S. government for wrongful death and for carrying out extrajudicial killings.

The case, filed in Massachusetts, is the first lawsuit over the strikes to land in a U.S. federal court since the Trump administration launched a campaign to target vessels off the coast of Venezuela. The American government has carried out three dozen such strikes since September, killing more than 100 people.

Among them are Chad Joseph, 26, and Rishi Samaroo, 41, who relatives say died in what President Trump described as “a lethal kinetic strike” on Oct. 14, 2025. The president posted a short video that day on social media that shows a missile targeting a ship, which erupts in flame.

Advertisement

“This is killing for sport, it’s killing for theater and it’s utterly lawless,” said Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “We need a court of law to rein in this administration and provide some accountability to the families.”

The White House and Pentagon justify the strikes as part of a broader push to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S. The Pentagon declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying it doesn’t comment on ongoing litigation.

But the new lawsuit described Joseph and Samaroo as fishermen doing farm work in Venezuela, with no ties to the drug trade. Court papers said they were headed home to family members when the strike occurred and now are presumed dead.

Neither man “presented a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the United States or anyone at all, and means other than lethal force could have reasonably been employed to neutralize any lesser threat,” according to the lawsuit.

Advertisement

Lenore Burnley, the mother of Chad Joseph, and Sallycar Korasingh, the sister of Rishi Samaroo, are the plaintiffs in the case.

Their court papers allege violations of the Death on the High Seas Act, a 1920 law that makes the U.S. government liable if its agents engage in negligence that results in wrongful death more than 3 miles off American shores. A second claim alleges violations of the Alien Tort Statute, which allows foreign citizens to sue over human rights violations such as deaths that occurred outside an armed conflict, with no judicial process.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Jonathan Hafetz at Seton Hall University School of Law are representing the plaintiffs.

“In seeking justice for the senseless killing of their loved ones, our clients are bravely demanding accountability for their devastating losses and standing up against the administration’s assault on the rule of law,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior counsel at the ACLU.

U.S. lawmakers have raised questions about the legal basis for the strikes for months but the administration has persisted.

Advertisement

—NPR’s Quil Lawrence contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

News

Video: New Video Analysis Reveals Flawed and Fatal Decisions in Shooting of Pretti

Published

on

Video: New Video Analysis Reveals Flawed and Fatal Decisions in Shooting of Pretti

new video loaded: New Video Analysis Reveals Flawed and Fatal Decisions in Shooting of Pretti

A frame-by-frame assessment of actions by Alex Pretti and the two officers who fired 10 times shows how lethal force came to be used against a target who didn’t pose a threat.

By Devon Lum, Haley Willis, Alexander Cardia, Dmitriy Khavin and Ainara Tiefenthäler

January 26, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending