News

Groups seek to use the Constitution’s ‘insurrection’ clause to block Trump from 2024 ballots

Published

2 years ago

August 31, 2023

Groups seek to use the Constitution’s ‘insurrection’ clause to block Trump from 2024 ballots

As former President Donald Trump continues to dominate the Republican presidential primary, some liberal groups and a growing number of legal experts contend that a rarely used clause of the Constitution prevents him from being president after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The 14th Amendment bars anyone from holding office who once took an oath to uphold the Constitution but then “engaged” in “insurrection or rebellion” against it. A growing number of legal scholars say the post-Civil War clause applies to Trump after his role in trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election and encouraging his backers to storm the U.S. Capitol.

Two liberal nonprofits pledge court challenges should states’ election officers place Trump on the ballot despite those objections.

The effort is likely to trigger a chain of lawsuits and appeals across several states that ultimately would lead to the U.S. Supreme Court, possibly in the midst of the 2024 primary season. The matter adds even more potential legal chaos to a nomination process already roiled by the frontrunner facing four separate criminal trials.

Now Trump’s very ability to run could be litigated as Republicans are scheduled to start choosing their nominee, starting with the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 15.

“There’s a very real prospect these cases will be active during the primaries,” said Gerard Magliocca, a law professor at Indiana University, warning that there could be different outcomes in different states before the Supreme Court makes a final decision. “Imagine you have an opinion that says he’s not eligible and then there’s another primary where he’s on the ballot.”

Though most litigation is unlikely to begin until October, when states begin to set their ballots for the upcoming primary, the issue has gotten a boost from a recently released law review article written by two prominent conservative law professors, William Baude and Michael Paulsen. They concluded that Trump must be barred from the ballot due to the clause in the third section of the 14th Amendment.

That section bars anyone from Congress, the military, and federal and state offices if they previously took an oath to support the Constitution and “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

In their article, scheduled to be published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Baude and Paulsen said they believe the meaning is clear.

“Taking Section Three seriously means excluding from present or future office those who sought to subvert lawful government authority under the Constitution in the aftermath of the 2020 election,” they write.

The issue came up during last week’s Republican presidential debate in Milwaukee, when former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson warned that “this is something that could disqualify him under our rules and under the Constitution.”

In 2021, the nonprofit Free Speech For People sent letters to the top election official in all 50 states requesting Trump’s removal if he were to run again for the presidency. The group’s legal director, Ron Fein, noted that after years of silence, officials are beginning to discuss the matter.

“The framers of the 14th Amendment learned the bloody lesson that, once an oath-breaking insurrectionist engages in insurrection, they can’t be trusted to return to power,” Fein said.

Ahead of the 2022 midterms, the group sued to remove U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene and former Rep. Madison Cawthorn, both Republicans, from the ballot over their support for the Jan. 6 protest. The judge overseeing Greene’s case ruled in her favor, while Cawthorn’s case became moot after he was defeated in his primary.

The complex legal issues were highlighted on Wednesday when the Arizona Republic reported that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said his hands are tied because of a ruling by that state’s high court that only Congress can disqualify someone on Arizona’s presidential ballot. Fontes, a Democrat, called the ruling “dead, flat wrong” in an interview with the Republic but said he would abide by it.

If Trump appears on the Arizona ballot, those who believe he’s not qualified can still sue in federal court to remove him.

Other secretaries of state are warily navigating the legal minefield.

In a radio interview earlier this week, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, said “there are valid legal arguments being made” for keeping Trump off the ballot and that it’s something she is discussing with other secretaries of state, including those in presidential battlegrounds.

Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state in Georgia who withstood pressure from Trump when he sought to overturn the 2020 results in the state, suggested the issue should be up to voters.

“As Georgia’s Secretary of State, I have been clear that voters are smart and deserve the right to decide elections.,” he said in an emailed statement.

Trump argues that any effort to prevent him from appearing on a state’s ballot amounts to “election interference” — the same way he is characterizing the criminal charges filed against him in New York, Atlanta and by federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., and Florida.

“And I think what’s happening is there’s really been a backlash against it,” Trump told the conservative channel Newsmax.

Indeed, the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s office was flooded with messages about the issue on Monday, said Anna Sventek, a spokeswoman. Earlier in the day, a conservative personality had falsely claimed the state was about to strike Trump from the ballot.

On Wednesday, a longshot Republican presidential candidate, John Anthony Castro of Texas, filed a complaint in a New Hampshire court contending the 14th Amendment barred Trump from that state’s ballot.

The eventual, bigger court challenges are expected to draw greater legal fire power. But Michael McConnell, a conservative law professor at Stanford University who is not a Trump supporter, said the case is no slam dunk.

McConnell questions whether the provision even applies to the presidency because it is not one of the offices specifically listed in the 14th Amendment — which instead refers to “elector of president and vice president.” He also said it’s unclear whether the Jan. 6 attack constitutes an “insurrection” under the law or simply a less legally fraught incident such as a riot.

But McConnell also worries about the political precedent if Trump is ultimately removed from any state ballot.

“It’s not just about Trump. Every election where someone says something supportive of a riot that interferes with the enforcement of laws, their opponents are going to run in and try to get them disqualified,” he said.

Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment helped ensure civil rights for freed slaves — and eventually for all people in the U.S. — but also was used to prevent former Confederates officials from becoming members of Congress and taking over the government they had just rebelled against.

The clause allows Congress to lift the ban, which it did in 1872 as the political will to continue to bar former Confederates dwindled. The provision was almost never used after that. In 1919, Congress refused to seat a socialist in Congress, contending he gave aid and comfort to the country’s enemies during World War I. Last year, in the provision’s first use since then, a New Mexico judge barred a rural county commissioner who had entered the Capitol on Jan. 6 from office under the clause.

If any state bars Trump from running, his reelection campaign is expected to sue, possibly taking the case directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. If no state bans him, Free Speech For People and another nonprofit, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, would likely challenge his presence on the ballot.

It’s critical that the high court settle the issue before the general election, said Edward Foley, a law professor at The Ohio State University. His fear is that if Trump’s qualifications are not resolved and he wins, Democrats could try to block his ascension to the White House on Jan. 6, 2025, triggering another democratic crisis.

Those pushing to invoke the amendment agree and say they think the case is clear.

“This isn’t a punishment. It’s like saying a president needs to be 35 years old and a natural born citizen,” said Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “You also need not to have helped organize an uprising against the government.”

Click to comment

News

Naval Academy Takes Steps to End Diversity Policies in Books and Admissions

Published

6 hours ago

March 29, 2025

Press Room

Naval Academy Takes Steps to End Diversity Policies in Books and Admissions

The Pentagon and U.S. Naval Academy are proceeding with actions in support of the Trump administration’s push to eliminate “woke” initiatives throughout the federal government.

The U.S. Naval Academy said it had ended its use of affirmative action in admissions, reversing a policy it previously defended as essential for diversity and national security, according to a federal court filing on Friday. And Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s office has ordered the Naval Academy to identify books related to so-called diversity, equity and inclusion themes that are housed in the school’s Nimitz Library, and to remove them from circulation.

This week, according to a defense official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss policy decisions, Mr. Hegseth’s office became aware that the nation’s military service academies did not believe that President Trump’s Jan. 29 executive order to end “radical indoctrination” in kindergarten through 12th-grade classrooms applied to them, as they are colleges. The defense secretary’s office informed the Naval Academy that Mr. Hegseth’s intent was for the order to apply to the academies, and that the secretary expected compliance.

“The U.S. Naval Academy is fully committed to executing and implementing all directives outlined in executive orders issued by the president and is currently reviewing the Nimitz Library collection to ensure compliance,” said Cmdr. Tim Hawkins, a Navy spokesman. “The Navy is carrying out these actions with utmost professionalism, efficiency, and in alignment with national security objectives.”

The academy’s library in Annapolis, Md., houses roughly 590,000 print books, 322 databases, and more than 5,000 print journals and magazines, Commander Hawkins said.

The court filing on the admissions policy, submitted by the Naval Academy, the Department of Defense, Mr. Hegseth and other officials, states that the Naval Academy changed its admissions policy in February in response to federal directives prohibiting the practice of considering race, ethnicity and sex during the admissions process.

The Naval Academy superintendent issued revised internal guidance on Feb. 14, stating that would not be happening, according to the filing. The superintendent, Vice Admiral Yvette M. David, reaffirmed this change on Wednesday, when she testified before a subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“At no time are race, sex or ethnicity considered in the qualification of a candidate,” she said. The Naval Academy did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the admissions policy on Friday.

Thus far, the review of Nimitz Library’s holdings has identified 900 books that may run afoul of the defense secretary’s verbal order. According to a second defense official, they include “The Autobiography of Martin Luther King Jr.,” “Einstein on Race and Racism,” and a biography on Jackie Robinson.

Mr. Hegseth is scheduled to visit the Naval Academy on Tuesday and to speak to the Brigade of Midshipmen. It is unclear whether the secretary expects the books to be removed before his arrival.

Defense officials said they were unaware whether the United States Military Academy at West Point, the United States Air Force Academy or the United States Coast Guard Academy had received similar orders, or whether the military’s graduate schools, such as the Naval War College and the Army’s Command and General Staff College, were expected to comply.

News

Anti-Americanism is a mug’s game

Published

8 hours ago

March 29, 2025

Press Room

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

Perhaps there is one simple reason why Donald Trump’s agenda is so hostile to Europe. Trump responds to flattery. Europe offers him almost none.

Even as European leaders sometimes try to massage the world’s most thin-skinned man, their publics make no secret of their contempt. Among voters in France, Germany and Spain, two-thirds say that Trump’s election has made the world less safe. Europe is too rowdy for sycophancy.

Trump surely notices this, just as he surely noticed the balloon of a giant orange baby flown on his state visit to London in 2019. His policies — imposing tariffs, threatening Greenland, shredding climate action, betraying Gaza and Ukraine — could hardly be better targeted as payback.

The temptation for Europeans is to go further: to vent not only at him, but America itself. It’s a short jump from decrying the US president as a dictatorial moron to decrying the public who elected him. In February, Canadian ice-hockey fans booed the US national anthem; “Make America Go Away” has made a great baseball cap. But otherwise, anti-Americanism has been notable by its absence.

Compare this to the years of George W Bush, the president who claimed he was misunderestimated before choking on a pretzel, when Americans were routinely mocked as fat, ignorant and arrogant. New Yorkers on holiday were made to feel personally responsible for war crimes. On the eve of the Iraq war, Europeans joked about the difference between yoghurt and Americans. The punchline: after a while, yoghurt develops some culture.

The then French president, Jacques Chirac, liked to say that he had a simple principle in foreign affairs: “I see what the Americans are doing and I do the opposite. That way, I’m sure to be right.” How they chuckled. This was the zenith not just of anti-American Islamist terrorism, but of anti-imperialist Latin American populists such as Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales.

But anti-Americanism has changed in 2025. Jokes about nationality don’t land as comfortably now. It’s rightly unfashionable to blame citizens for their governments, especially if the Americans we are most likely to encounter are despairing Democrats.

Anyway, Netflix and social media have bound us all together. You can’t really dismiss American culture when you choose to consume it daily. Go to Paris today, and see how readily people speak English. Go to London, and puzzle at the number of NFL fans. Judging by JD Vance’s and Pete Hegseth’s Signal messages, the Trump team is more anti-European than Europeans are anti-American.

Those repelled by Elon Musk’s X have moved to another West Coast-based network, Bluesky. European car buyers boycott Tesla but would buy a good American alternative. Just as the most effective takedowns of Bush came from an American filmmaker, Michael Moore, the best critiques of Trump and Musk will probably also come from the US itself. America is both thesis and antithesis.

Diplomatically too, anti-Americanism doesn’t fit the moment. Trump has reconciled with one regime that was fanatically anti-American under Bush — that is, Putin’s Russia — and even makes sporadic gestures to chavista Venezuela. Europeans are hardly in anti-imperial mood: they want American protection, not withdrawal.

The lesson of the Bush years is that presidential idiocy is temporary. Five and a half years after invading Iraq, America elected Barack Obama as president. Anti-Americanism is akin to amputating your broken leg, instead of waiting for it to heal.

But if it’s wrong to conflate Americans and their president, it’s wrong to disentangle them entirely. Trump reflects half of America. He reflects a society where a democratic majority is prepared to tolerate mass shootings and a warped political system. America provides so much of the world’s cultural backdrop that we sometimes mistake it for our own country. It is not, even when a Democrat is president.

Just last spring, during Joe Biden’s presidency, the US was seen unfavourably by at least half the public in Greece, Singapore and Australia, and by more than 40 per cent in Britain and Canada. The next time pollsters ask the question, they will doubtless find record western disillusion.

Europeans — and Canadians and others — are realising that we have our own values and not long to stand up for them. Boycott Philadelphia cream cheese if it makes you feel better. But most Europeans see that the times are now too serious for knee-jerk anti-Americanism.

Henry Mance is the FT’s chief features writer

Find out about our latest stories first — follow FT Weekend on Instagram and X, and sign up to receive the FT Weekend newsletter every Saturday morning

News

Hundreds of anti-Musk protests are planned at Tesla locations worldwide this weekend

Published

9 hours ago

March 29, 2025

Press Room

Hundreds of anti-Musk protests are planned at Tesla locations worldwide this weekend

Protesters showed up outside a Tesla showroom and service center in the North Hollywood area of Los Angeles on Saturday, March 15, 2025.

Richard Vogel/AP

hide caption

toggle caption

Richard Vogel/AP

Tesla facilities worldwide have been the target of protests objecting to Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s influential role in the Trump administration. This weekend, organizers who have been leading peaceful protests in recent weeks are staging what they hope to be their biggest day yet.

Protesters holding signs rally outside a Tesla store in Boston. One sign says "Stop Elon."

As part of the “Tesla Takedown” campaign, hundreds of nonviolent demonstrations are planned to take place across the U.S. on Saturday. Organizers are calling it a “global day of action” with a goal of 500 protests worldwide.

For weeks, the movement’s organizers have been encouraging people to boycott the EV maker by selling their Tesla cars and stocks. According to Tesla Takedown, thousands of grassroots groups and individuals worldwide are driving the decentralized effort.

Tesla Takedown organizers say the movement is fueled by anger over Musk’s slashing of the federal government, and that it aims to hit the billionaire where it hurts — the electric vehicle company that’s become his main source of wealth.

Joel Lava, who has been helping lead Tesla Takedown protests in Los Angeles, says Musk’s work to dismantle government agencies and workforce through the unofficially named DOGE initiative is the primary motivator for the movement’s members.

“He’s spearheading DOGE, which is spearheading our country’s destruction — literally destroying our country’s infrastructure,” Lava said. “Therefore, we are taking direct aim at his power, which is his wealth, which is Tesla.”

Musk critics point to a litany of other grievances, including his attacks on diversity, a gesture he made on the Inauguration Day stage that was widely interpreted to be a Nazi salute, and his support for far-right parties.

Elon Musk at a meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House on March 24, 2025, in Washington, D.C.

Musk and the White House did not respond to NPR’s request for comment.

Since Musk’s political turn, Tesla sales have slumped, and investors have grown uneasy. But market analysts question how much the dip in Tesla sales and shares can be pinned on its CEO’s actions. Tesla has been losing market share to EV competitors for years. And the stock price has fallen in anticipation of auto tariffs. But Trump administration’s recently announced 25% import tariffs on cars made outside the U.S. could give the stock a welcome boost; auto industry analysts say that among domestic carmakers, Tesla will be the least impacted by the tariffs.

Some of the anti-Musk backlash has been violent. Tesla vehicles, dealerships and charging stations across the U.S. and in Europe have been the target of arson and vandalism. Some have taken to spray-painting swastikas on Tesla sedans and Cybertrucks.

Tesla Takedown movement, organizers say its participants are exercising their right to peacefully protest and that they oppose violence and property destruction.

But Musk did not make that distinction when he went after Valerie Costa, a community activist who has helped organize recent peaceful protests in the Seattle area as part of the Tesla Takedown demonstrations.

Musk, in a post on X earlier this month, accused Costa of “committing crimes,” without giving evidence or specific allegations. That was after he claimed that an environmental activist group she cofounded was backed by the ActBlue, a fundraising platform for Democrats.

A man walks in a parking lot of a Tesla Collision Center in Las Vegas in front of a building with the word "RESIST" spray-painted on the door.

Costa told NPR that the accusations were false, and that Musk supporters subsequently targeted her in direct messages that included threats of physical violence.

“When one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful person in the world is saying you’ve committed a crime, it doesn’t matter what the truth is,” Costa said.

Tesla Takedown organizers who say they want to chip away at Musk’s power, and that starts with tarnishing Tesla’s brand.

“Trump only likes [Musk] because he’s rich,” Lava, the LA-based organizer, said. “If suddenly Musk becomes just another boring, low-end billionaire, Trump will dump him too, and that will also show the power we have as people to effect change.”