Politics
‘A Day of Love’: How Trump Inverted the Violent History of Jan. 6
In two weeks, Donald J. Trump is to emerge from an arched portal of the United States Capitol to once again take the presidential oath of office. As the Inauguration Day ritual conveying the peaceful transfer of power unfolds, he will stand where the worst of the mayhem of Jan. 6, 2021, took place, largely in his name.
Directly behind Mr. Trump will be the metal-and-glass doors where protesters, inflamed by his lie that the 2020 election had been stolen from him, stormed the Capitol with clubs, chemical irritants and other weapons. To his left, the spot where roaring rioters and outnumbered police officers fought hand to hand. To his right, where the prostrate body of a dying woman was jostled in the bloody fray.
And before him, a dozen marble steps descending to a lectern adorned with the presidential seal. The same steps where, four years earlier, Trump flags were waved above the frenzied crowd and wielded like spears; where an officer was dragged facedown to be beaten with an American flag on a pole and another was pulled into the scrum to be kicked and stomped.
In the wake of the attack on the Capitol, Mr. Trump’s volatile political career seemed over, his incendiary words before the riot rattling the leaders of his own Republican Party. Myriad factors explain his stunning resurrection, but not least of them is how effectively he and his loyalists have laundered the history of Jan. 6, turning a political nightmare into a political asset.
What began as a strained attempt to absolve Mr. Trump of responsibility for Jan. 6 gradually took hold, as his allies in Congress and the media played down the attack and redirected blame to left-wing plants, Democrats and even the government. Violent rioters — prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned — somehow became patriotic martyrs.
This inverted interpretation defied what the country had watched unfold, but it neatly fit the persecution narrative that binds Mr. Trump to many of his faithful. Once he committed to running again for president, he doubled down on flipping the script about the riot and its blowback, including a congressional inquiry and two criminal indictments against him, as part of an orchestrated victimization.
That day was an American calamity. Lawmakers huddled for safety. Vice President Mike Pence eluded a mob shouting that he should be hanged. Several people died during and after the riot, including one protester by gunshot and four police officers by suicide, and more than 140 officers were injured in a protracted melee that nearly upended what should have been the routine certification of the electoral victory of Mr. Trump’s opponent, Joseph R. Biden Jr.
But with his return to office, Mr. Trump now has the platform to further rinse and spin the Capitol attack into what he has called “a day of love.” He has vowed to pardon rioters in the first hour of his new administration, while his congressional supporters are pushing for criminal charges against those who investigated his actions on that chaotic day.
When asked about the reframing of the Capitol riot, and whether Mr. Trump accepts any responsibility for what unfolded on Jan. 6, his spokeswoman, Karoline Leavitt, instead referred in a statement to the “political losers” who tried to derail his career and asserted that “the mainstream media still refuses to report the truth about what happened that day.” She added, “The American people did not fall for the Left’s fear mongering over January 6th.”
The Jan. 6 tale that Mr. Trump tells is its own kind of replacement theory, one that covers over the marble-hard facts the way a blue carpet will cover those tainted Capitol steps on Inauguration Day.
The Seeds of Suspicion
What happened and why seemed beyond debate.
Hundreds of thousands of tips. Tens of thousands of hours of video footage. Thousands of seized cellphones. The attack on the Capitol was, after all, the largest digital crime scene in history, the total estimated cost of its aftermath exceeding $2.7 billion.
The Justice Department has experienced some setbacks in its criminal prosecutions — including a Supreme Court ruling that it overreached in using a controversial obstruction statute — but its success rate has been overwhelming. More than half of the nearly 1,600 defendants have pleaded guilty, while 200 more have been convicted after trial, resulting in sentences ranging from a few days in jail for misdemeanor trespassing to 22 years in prison for seditious conspiracy.
The story told by many of the indictments begins with a mixed-message speech delivered before the riot by Mr. Trump in a park near the White House. After falsely claiming that the 2020 election had been stolen, he encouraged people to march “peacefully and patriotically” to the Capitol, but reminded them that “we fight like hell.”
Mr. Trump retired to the White House, where he watched the televised violence and ignored advice to tell the mob to leave. Then, after sending two tweets calling for peaceful protest, he posted a video repeating his rigged-election falsehood and saying: “We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You’re very special.”
A follow-up tweet ended: “Remember this day forever!”
Condemnation came swiftly. As shaken Republican leaders denounced him and Democrats moved to impeach him for “incitement of insurrection,” a seemingly chastened Mr. Trump called the riot “a heinous attack on the United States Capitol.” In those early days, he referred to Jan. 6 as “the calamity at the Capitol” and warned that lawbreakers “will pay.”
The outgoing president called for national unity but declined to attend his successor’s inauguration. The Republican-controlled Senate acquitted him of incitement, but its leader, Mitch McConnell, declared him “practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day” — a sentiment apparently shared by most Americans, with nearly 60 percent saying in polls that he should never hold office again.
But sand was already being thrown in the eyes of history.
Before the Capitol had even been secured, Representative Paul Gosar, Republican of Arizona, was asserting on Twitter that the events had “all the hallmarks of Antifa provocation.” Hours later, the Fox News commentator Laura Ingraham was telling viewers that “there are some reports that antifa sympathizers may have been sprinkled throughout the crowd.” And by morning, Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, was claiming on the House floor that some rioters “were masquerading as Trump supporters and in fact were members of the violent terrorist group antifa.” (Mr. Gaetz would become President-elect Trump’s first choice for attorney general before being derailed by scandal.)
According to M.I.T. Technology Review, this fabrication was repeated online more than 400,000 times in the 24 hours after the Capitol attack, amplified by a cast of MAGA influencers, Republican officials and members of Mr. Trump’s family.
The former president remained mostly silent in the weeks that followed. But in a late March interview with Washington Post reporters that was not made public until months later, he provided an early hint of how he would frame the Jan. 6 attack.
The day he had previously called calamitous was now largely peaceful. The mob that stormed the Capitol had been “ushered in” by the police. And those who had rallied with him beforehand were a “loving crowd.”
A Deep-State Conspiracy Theory
Through the spring and summer of 2021, Mr. Trump’s Republican allies sought to sow doubt and blame others. It was as if Mr. McConnell, among other leading Republicans, had never publicly declared Mr. Trump responsible. As if the world had not seen what it had seen.
In early May, on the same day House Republicans stripped Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming of her leadership role for labeling Mr. Trump a threat to democracy, they used an Oversight Committee hearing to minimize the riot. Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina questioned whether all those rioters wearing Trump gear and shouting pro-Trump chants were truly Trump supporters, while Representative Andrew Clyde of Georgia likened much of the trespassing to a “normal tourist visit.”
This benign interpretation of Jan. 6 gave way to a much more startling theory, posed in mid-June by the Fox News host Tucker Carlson, at the time perhaps the most-watched commentator in cable news: The riot had been a false-flag operation orchestrated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Mr. Gaetz and another Republican loyalist, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, quickly seconded the deep-state conspiracy theory, while Mr. Gosar entered the article on which it was based — written by Darren Beattie, a former Trump speechwriter who had been fired for speaking at a conference beside white supremacists — into the Congressional Record.
Soon after, Mr. Trump broke his monthslong silence about Jan. 6. At an early July rally in Sarasota, Fla., he invoked the name of Ashli Babbitt, a pro-Trump rioter who had been fatally shot by a Capitol police officer while trying to breach the House floor, where lawmakers and staff members had sought safety. She was fast becoming a martyr to the cause.
“Shot, boom,” Mr. Trump said. “There was no reason for it. Who shot Ashli Babbitt?”
The former president also referred to the jailed rioters. Floating the specter of a justice system prejudiced against conservatives, he questioned why “so many people are still in jail over Jan. 6” when antifa and Black Lives Matter hadn’t paid a price for the violent protests that followed the murder of a Black man, George Floyd, by a white Minneapolis police officer in 2020.
The fog machine of conspiracy was turned up a few notches that fall, when the Fox Nation streaming service released “Patriot Purge,” a three-part series in which Mr. Carlson expanded on his specious contention that the Capitol attack was a government plot to discredit Mr. Trump and persecute conservatives.
The widely denounced claim was deemed so outrageous that two Fox News contributors, Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes, resigned in protest. In a scathing blog post, they wrote that the program was a hodgepodge of “factual inaccuracies, half-truths, deceptive imagery and damning omissions.”
Mr. Carlson’s documentary, they wrote, “creates an alternative history of January 6, contradicted not just by common sense, not just by the testimony and on-the-record statements of many participants, but by the reporting of the news division of Fox News itself.”
Martyrs and Vigils
Amid the conspiratorial swirl of antifa agitators and deep-state plots, a related narrative was gaining traction: the glorification of those who had attacked the Capitol. Instead of marauders, vandals and aggressors, they were now political prisoners, hostages, martyrs. Patriots.
This movement’s energy radiated from a troubled detention center in Washington where a few dozen men charged with attacking police officers and committing other violent offenses were held. A defiant esprit de corps developed among them in the so-called Patriot Wing, where inmates in prison-issue orange gathered every night to sing the national anthem.
Outside the razor-wire walls, their supporters kept vigil in a spot dubbed the “Freedom Corner.” Led by Ms. Babbitt’s mother, among others, they set out snacks, flew American flags and live-streamed phone conversations with inmates.
Sympathy that might have been reserved for the injured police officers was directed instead to those who had assaulted them. And Mr. Trump — whose Jan. 6 actions were now being investigated by the Justice Department and a bipartisan House select committee — emerged in 2022 as their No. 1 sympathizer.
At a mid-January rally in Florence, Ariz., he described the Jan. 6 defendants as persecuted political prisoners. Later that month, in Conroe, Texas, he promised that if he was re-elected, and if pardons were required, “we will give them pardons because they are being treated so unfairly.”
Mr. Trump’s counteroffensive began taking shape. The House select committee, whose members included Ms. Cheney, became in his words the “unselect committee” and the prevailing narrative of Jan. 6 as an insurrection “a lot of crap.”
One of his most repeated contentions was that the Democratic House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, had rejected his recommendation to have 10,000 soldiers present on Jan. 6. But subsequent investigations demonstrated that it was his own military advisers, and not Ms. Pelosi, who blocked the idea, concerned with both the optics of armed soldiers at a political protest and the possibility that Mr. Trump might invoke the Insurrection Act to place the troops under his direct command.
“There is absolutely no way I was putting U.S. military forces at the Capitol,” the acting defense secretary, Christopher Miller, later told investigators. Doing so, he said, could have created “the greatest constitutional crisis probably since the Civil War.”
As the select committee began holding hearings in early June 2022, Mr. Trump used speeches and his social media platform, Truth Social, to clap back at the damaging evidence and testimony. One post read: “The so-called ‘Rush on the Capitol’ was not caused by me, it was caused by a Rigged and Stolen Election!”
In a speech in Nashville that month, he dismissed the riot as a “simple protest” that “got out of hand,” again floated the possibility of pardons and furthered the false-flag theory by mentioning Ray Epps, a protester falsely portrayed by Mr. Carlson on Fox News and Republicans in Congress as a government plant who had stage-managed the riot.
His efforts seemed to be working. By mid-2022, an NBC News poll found that fewer than half of Americans still considered Mr. Trump “solely” or “mainly” responsible for Jan. 6.
For some supporters, though, Mr. Trump was not doing enough. In the late summer, he agreed to meet two advocates for the Jan. 6 defendants at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J.: Julie Kelly, a conservative journalist who had written skeptically about the Capitol attack, and Cynthia Hughes, a founder of the Patriot Freedom Project, which supported the inmates’ families. Ms. Hughes was also an aunt of Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, a professed Hitler fanboy who had spent time in the Patriot Wing.
They told Mr. Trump that the defendants and their families felt abandoned by him, Ms. Kelly later recalled, and that some of the federal judges in Washington he had appointed were among the worst in their handling of Jan. 6 cases.
These jurists had earned the ire of people like Ms. Kelly by repeatedly rejecting arguments that the defendants could not get fair trials in liberal Washington or had been unduly prosecuted for their pro-Trump politics. The judges also knocked down the contention that nonviolent rioters should not have been charged at all, ruling that everyone in the mob, “no matter how modestly behaved,” contributed to the chaos at the Capitol.
After his meeting with the women, Mr. Trump donated $10,000 to Ms. Hughes’s organization and told a conservative radio host that if he was elected, there would be full pardons and “an apology to many.” Days later, Ms. Hughes was given a speaking role at a Trump rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Ms. Hughes’s Patriot Freedom Project closed out 2022 with a fund-raising holiday party at the Capitol Hill Hilton, in sight of the riot scene. Children received gifts, inmates spoke to the crowd from jail and tearful family members shared their hardships. There was also a surprise video message of encouragement from Mr. Trump, who had recently announced his candidacy.
Then, just before Christmas, the House select committee released its final report, based largely on testimony from those inside Mr. Trump’s orbit. It accused him of repeatedly lying about a stolen election and summoning the angry mob that thwarted a peaceful transition between administrations.
In the report’s foreword, Ms. Cheney recalled how her great-great-grandfather answered Abraham Lincoln’s call to defend the union by joining the 21st Ohio Volunteer Infantry. He fought for four years, she wrote, for the same essential principle the committee was empaneled to protect: the peaceful transfer of power.
The Candidate and the Prison Choir
Perhaps the moment when Mr. Trump and his allies fully embraced their alternate version of history came on March 3, 2023, when a new song appeared on major streaming platforms.
The song, “Justice for All,” featured Mr. Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance while the men of the Patriot Wing, now billing themselves as the J6 Prison Choir, sang the national anthem. In other words, it was a collaboration between a man seeking the Republican presidential nomination and about 20 men charged with attacking the nerve center of the republic.
Mr. Trump recorded his contribution at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida, while the choir was recorded with a phone in the Washington jail. The song — a fund-raising effort that the Trump loyalist Kash Patel, now the president-elect’s nominee to head the F.B.I., helped produce — concludes with a defiant echo of the “U.S.A.!” chants that resounded during the Jan. 6 attack.
The first Trump campaign rally for the 2024 election took place three weeks later, in Waco, Texas, where a deadly standoff between federal agents and a religious cult in 1993 became a far-right touchstone. Before launching into complaints about persecution and promises of retribution, the candidate placed his hand over his heart for the playing of what an announcer called “the No. 1 song” on iTunes and Amazon, featuring Mr. Trump “and the J6 Choir.”
Mr. Trump’s version of the attack on the Capitol had firmly taken hold, at least within his party. A YouGov poll at the time found that most Republicans believed the events of Jan. 6 reflected “legitimate political discourse.”
In August 2023, Mr. Trump was indicted twice on charges of interfering with the 2020 election results: at the state level, for illegally seeking to overturn the results of the election in Georgia, which he had narrowly lost; and at the federal level, for conspiring to impede the Jan. 6 certification of Mr. Biden’s election.
A subsequent court filing by Jack Smith, the special counsel leading the federal investigation, cited Mr. Trump’s steadfast endorsement of the rioters and of the prison choir, “many of whose criminal history and/or crimes on January 6 were so violent that their pretrial release would pose a danger to the public.” The former president, it continued, “has financially supported and celebrated these offenders — many of whom assaulted law enforcement on January 6 — by promoting and playing their recording of the national anthem at political rallies and calling them ‘hostages.’”
All true. Still, Mr. Trump continued to play “Justice for All” at rallies and at Mar-a-Lago, spread his rigged-election lie, drop intimations of false-flag conspiracies, refer to those who stormed the Capitol as patriots — and, now, transformed the indictments into further fuel for his persecution narrative.
In so many ways, Jan. 6 had become part of his brand — a brand in which an attack on the symbol of American democracy became a defense of that same democracy: a blow against political thugs and closet communists, deep-state plots and an unjust justice system.
A part of the brand that, in November, helped Mr. Trump win election as the 47th president of the United States.
Promising Pardons — and Payback
Once he takes office, Mr. Trump will be positioned to finish refashioning Jan. 6 as a modern Lost Cause of the Confederacy.
With the help of Republican loyalists, the Senate acquitted him of incitement at his impeachment trial. The Supreme Court he had helped mold rejected an attempt to keep him off the ballot under a constitutional ban against insurrectionists from holding office. And his legal maneuvering — to delay, delay, delay — succeeded: In the days after the election, Mr. Smith, the special counsel, dropped his election-subversion case, adhering to a Justice Department policy not to prosecute a sitting president.
An emboldened Mr. Trump has already indicated that his presidential agenda will include payback for those who declared him responsible for the Capitol attack. He has said that Mr. Smith “should be thrown out of the country,” and that Ms. Cheney and other leaders of the House select committee — “one of the greatest political scams in history,” his spokeswoman, Ms. Leavitt, said — should “go to jail,” without providing evidence to warrant such extreme measures.
At the same time, Mr. Trump’s repeated vows to pardon those implicated in the Capitol riot, an act of erasure that would validate their claims of political persecution, has electrified the Jan. 6 community of families, defendants and felons. On election night, those keeping vigil outside the Washington jail celebrated with champagne.
Even though Mr. Trump has not specified whom he would pardon, many Jan. 6 participants are anticipating a general amnesty for everyone involved. One defendant, charged with attacking police officers with a baseball bat, even promoted an A.I. video of inmates in orange jumpsuits parading triumphantly out of jailhouse doors.
Many defendants have requested delays in their court proceedings because, they say, the imminent pardons will render their cases moot. Among those employing this argument was Philip Sean Grillo, convicted of several misdemeanors after entering the Capitol through a broken window and later boasting in a recording that “we stormed the Capitol. We shut it down! We did it!”
But to Mr. Grillo’s misfortune, the federal judge handling his case was Royce C. Lamberth, 81, a no-nonsense former prosecutor who had been appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987. Judge Lamberth not only rejected Mr. Grillo’s request for a delay, he filed a court document to “clear the air” and “remind ourselves what really happened.”
With clinical precision, the judge recalled how an angry mob invaded and occupied the Capitol with intentions to “thwart the peaceful transfer of power that is the centerpiece of our Constitution and the cornerstone of our republican legacy”; how they ignored directives to turn back and desist; how some engaged in “pitched battle” with the police, “stampeding through and over the officers.”
“They told the world that the election was stolen, a claim for which no evidence has ever emerged,” the judge wrote. “They told the world that they were there to put a stop to the transfer of power, even if that meant ransacking, emptying, and desecrating our country’s most hallowed sites. Most disturbingly, they told the world that particular elected officials who were present at the Capitol that day had to be removed, hurt, or even killed.”
The country came “perilously close” to letting the orderly transfer of power slip away, Judge Lamberth wrote. He knew this, he said, because he and his colleagues had presided over hundreds of trials, read hundreds of guilty pleas, heard from hundreds of law enforcement witnesses — “and viewed thousands of hours of video footage attesting to the bedlam.”
With that, Judge Lamberth ordered Mr. Grillo to be taken immediately into custody to begin a sentence of one year in prison.
As he was being handcuffed, the Jan. 6 rioter taunted the veteran judge by saying it didn’t matter: He would be pardoned anyway — by a man who will soon benefit from the peaceful transfer of power while standing on a blue carpet covering an old crime scene.
Dylan Freedman contributed reporting.
Politics
Cause of death confirmed for Mitt Romney’s sister-in-law
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
This story discusses suicide. If you or someone you know is having thoughts of suicide, please contact the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988 or 1-800-273-TALK (8255).
The death of former Sen. Mitt Romney’s sister-in-law has been confirmed to be a suicide, the Los Angeles County medical examiner’s office announced Tuesday.
Carrie Elizabeth Romney, 64, died of “blunt traumatic injuries” after plunging from a five-story parking garage in California in early October. She had been married to Mitt Romney’s older brother, George Scott Romney, 81, and the pair had been going through a months-long divorce.
“Our family is heartbroken by the loss of Carrie, who brought warmth and love to all our lives,” Mitt Romney said in a statement after Carrie’s death.
FETTERMAN’S BRUTALLY CANDID ACCOUNT OF BATTLING DEPRESSION, FEELING SUICIDAL, BEING THROWN OUT OF HIS HOUSE
Sen. Mitt Romney’s sister-in-law died in October. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
“We ask for privacy during this difficult time,” he added.
Carrie and George had been married since 2016. They had been separated since late May, and George filed a divorce petition in early June.
FLASHBACK: MITT ROMNEY MOCKED IN 2012 FOR SELF-DEPORTATION CONCEPT THAT HAS NOW BECOME A REALITY
George Scott Romney stands during the Pledge of Allegiance during the final day of the Republican National Convention at the Tampa Bay Times Forum on August 30, 2012 in Tampa, Florida. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Mitt Romney served as a Utah senator until 2024, when he decided not to run for re-election.
“I have spent my last 25 years in public service of one kind or another. At the end of another term, I’d be in my mid-eighties. Frankly, it’s time for a new generation of leaders. They’re the ones that need to make the decisions that will shape the world they will be living in,” Romney said at the time.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“We face critical challenges — mounting national debt, climate change, and the ambitious authoritarians of Russia and China. Neither President Biden nor former President Trump are leading their party to confront them,” Romney said.
“It is a profound honor to serve Utah and the nation, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to do so.”
Politics
Supreme Court poised to strike down Watergate-era campaign finance limits
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservatives signaled Tuesday they are likely to rule for Republicans and President Trump by throwing out a Watergate-era limit on campaign funding by political parties.
The court has repeatedly said campaign money is protected as free speech, and the new ruling could allow parties to support their candidate’s campaigns with help from wealthy donors.
For the second day in a row, Trump administration lawyers urged the justices to strike down a law passed by Congress. And they appeared to have the support of most of the conservatives.
The only doubt arose over the question of whether the case was flawed because no current candidate was challenging the limits.
“The parties are very much weakened,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. “This court’s decisions over the years have together reduced the power of political parties, as compared to outside groups, with negative effects on our constitutional democracy.”
He was referring to rulings that upheld unlimited campaign spending by wealthy donors and so-called super PACs.
In the Citizens United case of 2010, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and four other conservatives struck down the long-standing limits on campaign spending, including by corporations and unions. They did so on the theory that such spending was “independent” of candidates and was protected as free speech under the 1st Amendment.
They said the limits on contributions to candidates were not affected. Those limits could be justified because the danger of corruption where money bought political favors. This triggered a new era of ever-larger political spending but most of it was separate from the candidates and the parties.
Last year, billionaire Elon Musk spent more than $250 million to support Donald Trump’s campaign for reelection. He did so with money spent through political action committees, not directly to Trump or his campaign.
Meanwhile the campaign funding laws limit contributions to candidates to $3,500.
Lawyers for the National Republican Senatorial Committee pointed out this trend and told the Supreme Court its decisions had “eroded” the basis for some of the remaining the 1970s limits on campaign funding.
At issue Tuesday were the limits on “coordinated party spending.” In the wake of the Watergate scandal, Congress added limits on campaign money that could be given to parties and used to fund their candidates. The current donation limit is $44,000, the lawyers said.
Washington attorney Noel Francisco, Trump’s solicitor general during his first term, urged the court strike down these limits on grounds they are outdated and violate the freedom of speech.
“The theory is that they’re needed to prevent an individual donor from laundering a $44,000 donation through the party to a particular candidate in exchange for official action,” he said.
If a big-money donor hopes to win a favor from a congressional candidate, the “would-be briber would be better off just giving a massive donation to the candidate’s favorite super PAC,” Francisco said.
The suit heard Tuesday was launched by then-Sen. JD Vance of Ohio and other Republican candidates, and it has continued in his role as vice president and possibly a presidential candidate in 2028.
Usually, the Justice Department defends federal laws, but in this instance, the Trump administration switched sides and joined the Republicans calling for the party spending limits to be struck down.
Precedents might have stood in the way.
In 2001, the Supreme Court had narrowly upheld these limits on the grounds that the party’s direct support was like a contribution, not independent spending. But the deputy solicitor general, Sarah Harris, told the justices Tuesday that the court’s recent decisions have “demolished” that precedent.
“Parties can’t corrupt candidates, and no evidence suggests donors launder bribes by co-opting parties’ coordinated spending with candidates,” she said.
Marc Elias, a Democratic attorney, joined the case in the support of the court limits. He said the outcome would have little to do with speech or campaign messages.
“I think we’re underselling the actual corruption” that could arise, he said. If an individual were to give $1 million to political party while that person has business matter before the House or Senate, he said, it’s plausible that could influence “a deciding or swing vote.”
The only apparent difficulty for the conservative justices arose over questions of procedure.
Washington attorney Roman Martinez was asked to defend the law, and he argued that neither Vance nor any other Republicans had legal standing to challenge the limits. Vance was not a current candidate, and he said the case should be dismissed for that reason.
Some legal observers noted that the limits on parties arose in response to evidence that huge campaign contributions to President Nixon’s reelection came from industry donors seeking government favors.
“Coordinated spending limits are one of the few remaining checks to curb the influence of wealthy special interests in our elections,” said Omar Noureldin, senior vice president for litigation at Common Cause. “If the Supreme Court dismantles them, party leaders and wealthy donors will be free to pour nearly unlimited money directly into federal campaigns, exactly the kind of corruption these rules were created to stop.”
Daniel I. Weiner, an elections law expert at the Brennan Center, said the justices were well aware of how striking down these limits could set the stage for further challenges.
“I was struck by how both sides had to acknowledge that this case has to be weighed not in isolation but as part of a decades-long push to strike down campaign finance rules,” he said. “Those other decisions have had many consequences the court itself failed to anticipate.”
Politics
Video: Trump Calls Europe ‘Decaying’ and ‘Weak’
new video loaded: Trump Calls Europe ‘Decaying’ and ‘Weak’
transcript
transcript
Trump Calls Europe ‘Decaying’ and ‘Weak’
President Trump criticized his European counterparts over their defense and Ukraine policies during an interview with Politico. The president also suggested that it was time for President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to compromise in the cease-fire talks.
-
“Europe is not doing a good job in many ways. They’re not doing a good job.” “I want to ask you about that—” “They talk too much, and they’re not producing. But most European nations, they’re decaying. They’re decaying.” “You can imagine some leaders in Europe are a little freaked out by what your posture is. And European —” “Well they should be freaked out by what they’re doing to their countries. They’re destroying their countries and their people I like.” “Russia has the upper hand, and they always did. They’re much bigger. They’re much stronger in that sense. I give Ukraine a lot of — I give the people of Ukraine and the military of Ukraine tremendous credit for the bravery and for the fighting and all of that. But at some point, size will win, generally.” “Is Zelensky responsible for the stalled progress or what’s going on there?” “Well, he’s got to read the proposal. He hadn’t really. He hasn’t read it yet.” “The most recent draft.” “That’s as of yesterday. Maybe he’s read it over the night. It would be nice if he would read it. A lot of people are dying. He’s going to have to get on the ball and start accepting things. When you’re losing, cause he’s losing.”
By Chevaz Clarke
December 9, 2025
-
Alaska4 days agoHowling Mat-Su winds leave thousands without power
-
Politics1 week agoTrump rips Somali community as federal agents reportedly eye Minnesota enforcement sweep
-
Ohio7 days ago
Who do the Ohio State Buckeyes hire as the next offensive coordinator?
-
News1 week agoTrump threatens strikes on any country he claims makes drugs for US
-
World1 week agoHonduras election council member accuses colleague of ‘intimidation’
-
Texas5 days agoTexas Tech football vs BYU live updates, start time, TV channel for Big 12 title
-
Iowa4 days agoMatt Campbell reportedly bringing longtime Iowa State staffer to Penn State as 1st hire
-
Miami, FL4 days agoUrban Meyer, Brady Quinn get in heated exchange during Alabama, Notre Dame, Miami CFP discussion