News
Three Republican Candidates, Three Very Different Styles
Nikki Haley paces around the stage as she answers audience questions. Ron DeSantis brings his wife and kids to almost every campaign stop. And Donald Trump calls them both insulting names at his rallies.
Hundreds of events over the course of the year reveal distinct campaigning styles among the top three Republican presidential candidates. With few major differences in their policy positions, the candidates have focused largely on their personal brands.
Here is what it feels like to be on the road with Mr. Trump, Ms. Haley and Mr. DeSantis.
The Walk-On
Nearly every campaign speech begins in the same way: Candidates are introduced by a host, surrogate or announcer, and then they take the stage.
After being introduced, both Ms. Haley and Mr. DeSantis jump into their speeches within about 30 seconds. Mr. Trump takes much longer.
Haley
Washington
June 24, 2023 DeSantis
Des Moines
May 30, 2023
Trump
Bedminster, N.J.
June 13, 2023
Mr. Trump mills about on stage, allowing the audience, who has often waited hours to see him, to cheer as Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the U.S.A.” plays. Almost three minutes pass before he starts speaking.
“Trump is a superstar in the eyes of the people in the room,” said Rachel Paine Caufield, a political science professor at Drake University in Des Moines.
Ms. Haley’s and Mr. DeSantis’ events tend to have more curious onlookers rather than hard core fans, voters who want a sense of who each candidate is and what it feels like to be in the room with them. Before she starts her speech, Ms. Haley will sometimes ask who in the room is seeing her for the first time, which usually draws more than a few hands.
Same Issues,
Different Speaking Styles
The three candidates largely target the same issues in their speeches: inflation and government debt, crime, illegal immigration and strengthening law enforcement and the military.
Where they differ is how they speak about these issues, especially the economy and inflation.
DeSantis Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Aug. 6, 2023
Haley
Meredith, N.H. Nov. 29, 2023
Trump
Anaheim, Calif.
Sept. 29, 2023
Here they are speaking about immigration and the U.S.-Mexico border.
DeSantis
Concord, N.H.
Dec. 15, 2023 Haley
Indian Land, S.C.
Aug. 29, 2023
Trump
Palm Beach, Fla.
Nov. 15, 2022
Mr. DeSantis tends to use long words and policy jargon — “Bidenomics,” “balanced budget amendment,” “fees on remittances.” Ms. Caufield said that his lexicon aims to convey intelligence and strength. Ruth Sherman, a political communications consultant, noted that Mr. DeSantis uses volume as a tool for expression, often speaking louder to make a point.
By contrast, Ms. Haley aims to convey empathy when she speaks — “you feel it,” “when you get up in the morning” — and often bookends her main points with personal anecdotes. Both Ms. Caufield and Ms. Sherman observed that Ms. Haley uses her voice expressively and employs expansive hand gestures to add energy and power.
Mr. Trump uses vague and exaggerated language — “country killer,” “millions and millions,” “very bad and sinister” — to paint issues with a broad brush. He will meander through stories and explanations until he gets to his point, which can end in a catchphrase that he repeats several times.
Talking About Each Other
Mr. Trump has not been shy about attacking Mr. DeSantis and Ms. Haley.
On DeSantis
Erie, Pa. July 29, 2023
On DeSantis and Haley
Fort Dodge, Iowa
Nov. 18, 2023
For much of last year, Mr. Trump focused his jabs at Mr. DeSantis, repeatedly calling him “DeSanctimonious” or “DeSanctis” in his speeches. But after the second Republican debate, when Ms. Haley began to rise in the polls, he started calling her “Birdbrain.” He accuses them both of disloyalty, arguing they “betrayed” him by running for president.
Ms. Haley and Mr. DeSantis have both tried to present themselves as softer alternatives to Mr. Trump, and they have tread much more lightly when talking about him. Early in their campaigns, they referred to him and his policies critically but often without saying his name. More recently, as voting draws closer, they have explicitly stated that Mr. Trump was the right president at the time but is not fit for the job in 2024.
Haley on Trump
Pickens, S.C. July 1, 2023
DeSantis on Trump
Miami
Nov. 8, 2023
Connecting with the Audience
Even when using a teleprompter, Mr. Trump speaks to his audience casually. He goes off-script to work the crowd, asking them direct questions, taking live polls and calling out specific people he seems to recognize in the front row.
As Ms. Caufield said, “He’s a showman, first and foremost.”
“Please sit down.”
Palm Beach, Fla. Nov. 5, 2022
“Are we having fun?”
Erie, Pa.
July 29, 2023 Live audience poll
Windham, N.H.
Aug. 8, 2023
Front-Row Joes
Derry, N.H.
Oct. 23, 2023
Mr. Trump also uses a “call and response” technique with his audience, appealing to their emotions but rarely taking their questions.
Mr. DeSantis’ primary way of connecting with voters is by using his wife, Casey. She has joined her husband on stage to answer audience questions, introduced him at events, and brought their children up to wave and share relatable stories about parenting.
Greenville, S.C.
June 2, 2023
Ankeny, Iowa July 15, 2023
Decorah, Iowa
Aug. 4, 2023
Garner, Iowa
Aug 26, 2023
Seacoast, N.H.
Oct. 24, 2023 Kissimmee, Fla.
Nov. 4, 2023
Ms. DeSantis has even held solo campaign events, reflecting the central role she has in her husband’s political career.
Voters who Ms. Caufield spoke with during early DeSantis events would say that he was a little awkward and that maybe he had the potential to become a great candidate. Those voters, she said, would often “follow that up by saying, ‘Casey DeSantis is amazing.’”
One of Ms. Haley’s signature moves is to walk back and forth across the stage. Even when she has a podium or a chair available, she frequently chooses to pace around, turning to address different sections of the audience as she speaks.
Salix, Iowa
April 11, 2023
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Aug. 6, 2023
Londonderry, N.H.
Nov. 2, 2023 Newton, Iowa
Nov. 17, 2023
Her campaign events are often set up in the round, with the audience on three or all four sides of her, while Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Trump are more likely to be at a podium directly in front of their crowds. Ms. Haley’s staging allows people to ask her questions from all over the room, boosting her message that she will not shy away from answering tough questions and giving “hard truth” answers.
As the three candidates make their final pitches to early voters, Mr. Trump will aim to lock down his dominant lead in the polls ahead of Ms. Haley and Mr. DeSantis.
Sources
The video clips used in this article are from the following sources: Forbes Breaking News; Right Side Broadcasting Network; ABC Action News; Sky News; JET24 FOX 66 YourErie; CNN-News18; Never Back Down; Reuters; The Gazette; NBC News; C-SPAN; Nikki Haley; The National Desk; and Sioux City Journal.
News
Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts
The U.S. Supreme Court
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.
The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.
The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.
The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.
Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.
But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.
What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.
Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.
This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.
The case, however, was not over.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”
So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.
The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”
The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”
Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.
News
Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area
Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown. The New York Times
A minor, 3.7-magnitude earthquake struck in the San Francisco Bay Area on Tuesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.
The temblor happened at 9:44 a.m. Pacific time about 4 miles southeast of Cloverdale, Calif., data from the agency shows.
U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 3.6.
As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.
Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.
Aftershocks detected
Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles
Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.
The New York Times When quakes and aftershocks occurred
Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 12:59 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 1:59 p.m. Eastern.
News
Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. The United States continues to lead the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) because of the enormous talent and innovation of our AI industry, and because we refuse to stifle this innovation with overly burdensome regulation. My Administration has unleashed tremendous technological growth and economic investment in AI by slashing the bureaucratic constraints that the prior administration placed on America’s AI developers and researchers, and by instead encouraging AI innovation and accelerating responsible AI adoption across government and industry.
Advanced AI capabilities make our Nation stronger, but also introduce new national security considerations that require coordinated action across executive departments and agencies (agencies), and components. As these capabilities evolve, my Administration will continue to work closely with industry to ensure that the best and most secure technology is deployed rapidly to confront any and all threats to our country. We will continue to lead an America First cybersecurity effort that enhances both our national security and our global AI dominance.
It is the policy of the United States to promote AI innovation and security by working collaboratively with the private sector to modernize government and private sector information systems and harden them against external threats; to protect American ingenuity and intellectual property from exploitation and theft by adversaries; and to cultivate America’s advanced AI-enabled capabilities.
Sec. 2. Upgrading American Systems for Advanced AI. (a) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Committee on National Security Systems shall prioritize the cyber defense of National Security Systems, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(6)(A), by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of War shall prioritize the cyber defense of Department of War information systems by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.
(c) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the National Cyber Director, shall release Binding Operational Directives and other guidance as appropriate to:
(i) expedite and prioritize the cyber defense of civilian Federal Government information systems in order to protect our Nation’s vital functions;
(ii) establish or expand Federal programs and cybersecurity services that enhance AI-enabled defensive tools; and
(iii) facilitate access to cybersecurity tools and services including, where appropriate, covered frontier models for agencies, State and local authorities, and operators of critical infrastructure such as rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities.
(d) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the Secretary of War, through the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, shall form an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse, in voluntary collaboration with the AI industry and operators of critical infrastructure, that coordinates and deconflicts scanning for software vulnerabilities, discovers and validates such vulnerabilities, and coordinates and prioritizes remediation and distribution of vulnerability patches.
(e) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Director of OMB, in coordination with the National Cyber Director and the Director of CISA, shall determine whether any Federal grant programs have available and relevant funding that can be directed toward applicants developing advanced AI vulnerability detection.
(f) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall expand the United States Tech Force Information Cybersecurity Specialist hiring and placement pathways.
Sec. 3. Secure Frontier Model Deployment. Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, through the Director of NSA, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, in consultation with the White House Chief of Staff, through the National Cyber Director, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), and the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and in coordination with other agencies, as appropriate, shall:
(a) develop and maintain a classified benchmarking process to assess the advanced cyber capabilities of AI models and determine the threshold at which an AI model should be designated a “covered frontier model” for the purposes of this order, sharing such assessments with AI developers and researchers as appropriate. Such a determination shall be made by the Director of NSA, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the APST, the Director of CISA, and other representatives of the Department of War, as appropriate.
(b) design a voluntary framework with AI developers through which developers would be able to:
(i) engage the Federal Government to determine whether model(s) under development meet the designation of “covered frontier model”;
(ii) provide the Federal Government with access to covered frontier models, subject to appropriate confidentiality, cybersecurity, insider-risk, and intellectual-property protection, use, and nondisclosure requirements, for a period of up to 30 days before they plan to release such models to other trusted partners; and
(iii) collaborate with the Federal Government to select trusted partners that will have early access to covered frontier models to promote secure innovation and strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the creation of a mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models, including frontier models.
Sec. 4. Protection Against Criminal Actors. The Attorney General shall prioritize the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1028, 18 U.S.C. 1030, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and all other applicable Federal criminal laws against anyone who utilizes AI to illegally access or damage a computer without authorization, or who utilizes AI while engaged in such illegal access to further any other crime. This includes breaching any public or private information technology system, or employing AI agents to unlawfully access data or information that is subsequently used for a criminal or unlawful purpose.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of War.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 2, 2026.
-
North Carolina7 minutes agoGreenville Police Department Join Effort Promoting Safe Firearm Storage
-
North Dakota10 minutes agoToday in History, 1971: Rugby repeats as North Dakota sand greens golf champion
-
Ohio15 minutes agoU20 World Team decided at U20 World Team Trials in Geneva, Ohio – WIN Magazine
-
Oklahoma22 minutes agoOklahoma data center boom sparks backlash as Yukon leaders, residents raise concerns
-
Oregon25 minutes agoTimeline video traces SB 1008’s impact on Oregon juvenile justice, viewers can watch now
-
Pennsylvania30 minutes ago1 dead, 2 hospitalized after crash in Bensalem, Pennsylvania, police say
-
Rhode Island37 minutes ago
RIIL title-game spots were on the line Tuesday. Here’s who earned them.
-
South-Carolina40 minutes agoSouth Carolina Lottery Mega Millions, Pick 3 results for June 2, 2026