Read the Full Transcript: Bukele’s Interview with Time
El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele sat down for an interview with TIME in his office at the Casa Presidencial in San Salvador on June 25. Bukele, who won re-election in February with 84% of the vote, had just begun his second term. He discussed his government’s crackdown on the country’s notorious gangs and the emergency powers that have allowed him to suspend some civil liberties in order to incarcerate more than 81,000 suspected gang members and their associates. He also talked about how plunging homicide rates have transformed El Salvador, his efforts to rebrand the nation by adopting Bitcoin as legal tender, and why the “Bukele Model” is being adopted across the region.
Below is a transcript, lightly edited for clarity, of Bukele’s interview with TIME Senior Correspondent Vera Bergengruen.
TIME: I wanted to start with your inauguration, which was quite a spectacle. Were you surprised by the level of international attention it received and the high-level officials, especially the large delegation from the United States, who attended?
Bukele: The inauguration is an event that is always held; it is normal. It’s expected that there will be a lot of local attention from the people of the country. Obviously, there will be some international attention, no matter how small. Any inauguration in Latin America gets some press. Some people who had their own followers started to confirm. Everyone said, “Such and such will come.”
Some prominent people in the United States also started to come, which I think helped make the government’s delegation more robust. The government sent a very robust delegation—not just the Secretary of Homeland Security but also representatives from the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, and various other agencies. Even a bipartisan congressional and Senate delegation came.
In the end, it became more and more robust. I think one thing led to another. In the end, it attracted even more international attention. In addition, our administration, at least on this side of the world, is quite well known, especially in Latin America, much less in other latitudes or the eastern hemisphere or Europe. It is much less known there than here. In this area, it has become better known and, therefore, already received some attention. The build-up, I think, resulted in more attention than we expected—but it was positive attention.
It seems to me that you were seeking to show them a different aspect of El Salvador. When one walks into the airport, it now says, “Welcome to the land of surf, volcanoes, and coffee.” What was the feedback from the people who traveled here—especially from members of Congress and the people who came from the U.S., like Donald [Trump] Jr.,Tucker Carlson—who wouldn’t have visited if it weren’t for you and what is happening in El Salvador?
Bukele: Yes. Some are not just thinking about but actively looking to buy properties in El Salvador to get away and rest. The truth is, why not? El Salvador is a very nice, small country, the smallest in all of the Americas. It is very nice. It has the best surf beaches in the world, at least according to surfers it is in the top five. Some might say, “No, the ones in this or that country are better,” but they’re among the top in the world.
We have some of the best coffee in the world. While its supremacy over the coffee from other countries may be debatable, it is undeniably excellent coffee. We have one of the greatest, if not the highest, densities of volcanoes in the world, with some beautiful ones to see, and so on. The biggest problem in El Salvador, which was never a tourist destination—never even making it into the top 100—was primarily insecurity.
As it is now the safest country on the continent, there are no longer any obstacles to visiting it. It’s a completely free and open country, easy to visit—most countries don’t require a visa to enter. It’s 100% safe, with many natural attractions packed into a relatively small space. It makes sense to many people, especially in the United States; South Florida is only a two-hour flight away. There are several direct flights available every day. Understandably, people would want to spend a few days here each year.
Since this is a profile, I’m interested in understanding your political evolution, especially given your family’s connections to the Salvadoran left. In 2012, you described yourself as being part of the “radical left.” From the outside, it seems you align more with the right, and most of your allies in the United States are right-wing. How would you define your political views?
Bukele: Yes, I definitely don’t consider myself to be left-wing or right-wing. That division originated after the French Revolution. It’s essentially as basic or absurd as saying, “Those who supported the most revolutionary ideals sat on the left side of the hemicycle, while those who favored the most monarchical ideals sat on the right. Thus, they were labeled the left and the right.” Since then, all countries have been influenced by the seat distribution established in France.
Which, to me, made some sense at the time, of course. One learns and understands things better, but a division originating from the French Revolution no longer makes sense to me. It’s not even classical enough to say it comes from human civilization. Nor is it modern enough to say it’s still in effect. It’s an archaic definition that isn’t even old enough to be considered classical. It makes no sense to define things in terms of left and right.
Additionally, I have many friends on the right, and we may currently have more support from right-leaning sectors than from the left. However, I don’t consider myself aligned with either side. Our government policies are not designed to lean right or left. I think this is largely due to some coincidences. From my perspective, as someone who was once on the left, it seems that if I were to analyze things from an external viewpoint, the left has lost its way across the world. I’m no longer interested in those definitions, but that’s my observation. They don’t even have clear models or prominent figures.
If I were part of that camp, I’d say, “We have a serious identity crisis and need to act quickly before we lose all elected offices,” because people no longer see any clear direction on the left. Despite its anachronisms, the right is at least setting a course. I’m not the only one saying this; scholars on the left and many others also note it.
At your inauguration, you said that it was the first time that a single party would dominate a fully democratic system, with all opposition effectively “pulverized.” Do you think a country can be truly democratic with a single party in power and no significant, or only a greatly diminished, opposition?
Bukele: Yes, of course. What happens is that an imposed single party is incompatible with democracy. What can I choose if there is only one party? Others may defend it and have their own perspectives. I believe that a single party imposed by legislation is incompatible with democracy. However, when there is a hegemonic party, as in our case—perhaps you were referring to the victory speech on election day—the correct term would be a very hegemonic party.
We hold 90% of the seats in Congress, and with our allies, we have 95%. The opposition has only 5%, with just three representatives out of 60. It is an extremely hegemonic party, almost unique, but the difference is that it has been 100% democratic. Not only because we have held elections—after all, I have heard people say, “The fact that there are elections does not guarantee that it is democracy.”
Yes, of course, but in our case, it is different. We have a Supreme Electoral Tribunal controlled by the opposition, the same tribunal that controlled the previous election in 2021. At that time, the opposition controlled the courts, the assembly, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, and all State institutions, while we only had control of the executive branch. That is well-documented. We had intense conflicts and disagreements, of course, because we were on opposing sides.
The opposition entirely controlled the country, except for the presidency and the executive branch. With that tribunal in place, we won the 2021 elections decisively, securing 70% of the votes, if I’m not mistaken. This allowed us to implement the necessary reforms, including the emergency regime, the war against gangs, and other measures.
In the 2024 election, the same electoral tribunal was maintained, the same political parties, the party that was in power the 10 years before our government. The party that was in power the 20 years before that also participated. The party that was in power the five years before that also participated, and the party that was in power the 20 years before participated as well.
These are not parties…None are friendly; that is, they are very vociferous and critical, expressing themselves very strongly against the government with total freedom. They ran a campaign of harsh criticism, with strong attacks, which is completely valid in a democracy. I don’t see this as negative; rather, it’s a positive indication that we had a completely free and transparent election.
Even the international observers we had—more than 3,000 on the ground, if I recall correctly—and organizations like the European Union and the OAS, which are among the most involved in monitoring elections, all stated that the election results were valid. They may have had some reservations, but they acknowledged the outcome. They said, “Finally, after all, we can guarantee that the election outcome reflects the feelings and the decisions of the Salvadoran people.” I didn’t say that; the European Union said it.
Yes, I think no one is denying that.
Bukele: Correct. A few months earlier, when we had the inauguration of a Central American and Caribbean Sports Games here in El Salvador, quite a few media outlets attended. I told them, “Don’t just take my word for it, because of course I’ll speak positively about us and the government. But you’re already here—you’ve got your cameras, paid for your plane tickets, booked your hotel rooms, and set up your internet. You’ve got everything: the people, the photographers, and the video cameras. Go to the streets. Ask people and don’t go where–”
“Yes, go there, but don’t limit yourselves to the most public or prominent places where the government might have some influence. No. Go anywhere. It is so safe that you can walk into any dark alley without any problem. Go to a community—head into a rural area without many people. You might hear a dog barking in the distance, but that doesn’t matter. Go anywhere, ask the people. It will be rare if you find a negative opinion among the population.”
Someone still came and told me later, “Oh, sure, that’s because the dictatorship is so strong that people are afraid to speak out against it.” I said, “It’s not like that, but putting myself in your shoes, I can see why you would think that.” We got 85% of the votes in the election here in El Salvador; that is, 15% didn’t vote for us.
The turnout for voting abroad was exceptionally high, both in terms of percentage and total numbers, compared to any other country in the world. We received 98.7% of the votes from Salvadorans living abroad—nearly 99%. Out of 700,000 Salvadorans who voted, a significant number given our electoral roll and population, we secured 98.7% of the votes.
I told them, “If it’s the dictatorship that makes people support us, how did we manage to bring it to New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Boston, Houston, Miami, and all the places where we had– Madrid, Australia, Milan? How did we bring the dictatorship to every polling center in the world?”
We even encountered a problem on Election Day because the polls were closed at 6:00 PM. According to Salvadoran Electoral Law, the polls cannot be closed until the last person in line has voted. However, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal closed the polls abroad at that time, leaving many people still outside.
They were waiting in the cold, in the snow. People started complaining. There are videos on social media of people complaining, “Let us in.” Some media outlets in the United States interviewed them. Basically, we know it was 98% or more, but there, it looked like 100% of the people supported us. How do we bring the dictatorship to these great cities in the world and all countries? To Europe, Australia, Asia, Latin America, the United States, and Canada? It would be impossible for the dictatorship to influence people there. I think there’s been a strong narrative against us, which is fine. Still, when people come here and see the reality, it contrasts sharply with what’s been said abroad—especially in Europe and the United States, though not as much in Latin America.
I think no one really denies the popular support—it’s quite evident. I ask because it’s quite unusual to have a democracy with only one dominant party, right?
Bukele: Sorry, I went on a tangent. I didn’t exactly answer your question. What I meant by all that—and sorry for the tangent—is that the population decides this. I don’t think a single president in the world wouldn’t try to achieve as much as possible in their meetings.
I am sure that, whether in the United States, France, or anywhere else, the president participates in elections, midterm elections, if not him then his representatives, to aim to secure as much support as possible. If he could get 99% support from Congress, he would get it. I am sure that President Biden in the United States during the midterms did not say, “Let’s aim for only a maximum of 55% to maintain checks and balances.” I’m sure the Democrats tried to get everything they were able to.
Regardless of who wins the election in November in the United States, be it the Democrats or the Republicans, the incumbent president will use every resource available—finances, sponsors, ground support—to try and secure as many seats as possible, ideally 100% of the seats in both Congress and the Senate.
Now, they may not succeed, but their failure can’t be our roadmap. I can’t say that, because presidents worldwide often face failure and poor evaluations, and because midterms frequently yield unsatisfactory results, we’re not going to artificially assign half of Congress to the opposition just say that we are a democracy.
You’re saying that it’s not your fault that you’re so popular.
Bukele: Exactly.
I saw an interview from 2019 where you repeatedly said, “We have 59 months left, we only have 58 months left to do this job.” Obviously, now you’ll have many more months. When did you decide that running for a second term would be possible, and how did you come to that decision?
Bukele: What happened is that what I said in 2019, I actually started saying back in 2014. But back then, I wasn’t referring to myself; I was talking about another president. In the Salvadoran mindset, and according to what we’ve always understood from the Salvadoran Constitution, immediate re-election was not allowed. Re-election was allowed but with a period in between. That was the interpretation of Article 152 of the Constitution; that’s how it was always understood. The president can serve one term and then sit out the next term. However, he can run again after that break.
I believe you yourself explained this ban in 2013.
Bukele: I even explained it in an interview. If I recall correctly, in 2014, Elías Antonio Saca, who served as president from 2004 to 2009, ran again. He used the rule allowing a former president to run again after sitting out for at least one term.
He ran for the presidency again in 2014. The institutions allowed him to run for office and register. He registered his movement, united three political parties, and formed a coalition to support him. Then, a citizen lawyer filed a lawsuit against his candidacy, arguing that Article 152 of the Constitution didn’t just prohibit immediate re-election but also re-election after sitting out a term.
Article 152 literally says, “You cannot be a candidate for the presidency of the Republic if you have been president in the immediately preceding period.” The argument presented by the citizens and that lawyer before the Supreme Court of Justice was made when I was the mayor of a small municipality; I wasn’t even the mayor of San Salvador yet, and I had zero influence.
The argument they presented to the Court was that the article had been misinterpreted. It states, “Whoever has been president in the immediately preceding period may not be a candidate for the Presidency of the Republic.” They argued that “may not be a candidate” refers to the current period and applies to the candidate who has just completed a term.
The Constitution states, “Whoever was president in the immediately preceding period may not be a candidate.” In other words, “He who was president in the immediately preceding period cannot be a candidate,” as the article says verbatim. It’s a bit shocking, but they were right. The wording of the article literally forbids the president from the immediately preceding period from running as a candidate. It states that explicitly.
I’m not the one saying it’s right, but the Supreme Court of Justice said it was right. Not the justices my party appointed but all the previous ones appointed before my party was in power. They let the former president run, and the president lost the elections. He got 11% of the votes; it didn’t go so badly, but he lost. He came in third.
After losing, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice decided that it was correct. That was a 2014 resolution. I was the mayor of Nuevo Cuscatlán, not even the mayor of San Salvador. It’s a small town on the outskirts of San Salvador, where I live.
The Constitutional Chamber of the Salvadoran Constitutional Court stated, “It is true. Article 152 does not prohibit immediate re-election but prohibits re-election with a period in between.” However, the Constitutional Chamber also noted at that time, “There is another article that mentions that alternability in the exercise of the presidency is fundamental to the system of government in El Salvador.”
They said, “Therefore, we will prohibit re-election for 10 years. We will prohibit immediate re-election based on the article about alternability, and we will also prohibit re-election after skipping a term, like what Tony Saca did. From now on, this will be prohibited by Article 152.” The Constitutional Chamber changed the interpretation of Article 152.
When was that?
Bukele: 2014, 10 years ago.
So when did you decide—
Bukele: I was the mayor of Nuevo Cuscatlán at the time. After that, I ran for mayor of San Salvador and won the office in 2015. I served my full term as a mayor. In 2018, I was expelled from my party and ran for president. We won in 2019, long before anything else.
When I was president, we were in the campaign for mayors and representatives. During this campaign, a candidate for representative from an allied party said in a television interview, ‘”I’m going to work as a representative so that we can re-elect the president.” A lawyer sued the candidate, who, by the way, did not win the election. She was a young woman and did not win the election. He sued the candidate, asking that her rights as a citizen be revoked. It was that serious, just for having proposed something like this.
The Constitutional Chamber received the claim and resolved that she had not violated anything in the Constitution because, according to the previous chamber’s interpretation, Article 152 did not prohibit immediate re-election. Although the previous chamber had prohibited immediate re-election based on the article about alternation, the term “alternability” is not the same as “alternation.”
Alternability means the ability to alternate, allowing the population the possibility to effect a change, not the obligation to do so. That is why no one says that the United States lacks alternability. It has alternability now. You have the option to alternate or keep the same president.
The Court ruled that it is possible to run for president for an immediate term. However, it is not possible to do so afterward, according to the interpretation of Article 152. At that time, with a resolution, the Court was enabling presidential re-election with the resolution in favor of the former candidate. Re-election was enabled, and obviously we saw that as an opportunity.
We didn’t make the decision at that time because we had to weigh many factors, in my case, family matters. However, a little less than a year later, we decided to take advantage of the opportunity for re-election that had opened to us, which didn’t exist before but was now possible.
The most important thing is that, in the end, the candidate would be presented to the population, and they would decide whether they liked them or not. They had a full range of possible candidates, including those within my own party.
Obviously, it was very difficult for them to beat me within my party. But even in the general election, with all the parties involved—the former bipartisanship, the right, the left, the ex-guerrillas, the former government—together, they didn’t even get 15% of the votes in an election that was audited, observed, and recognized by every country in the world.
There is something interesting there, and that is that few governments, very few, are recognized by 100% of the world’s countries. There are governments, regardless of their power—though this is not the case with the United States, of course—that not all countries may recognize. Many countries have varying levels of recognition and issues related to their international standing.
In the case of El Salvador, no single country or government in the whole world says, “No, El Salvador’s election was illegitimate.” That is, there may be questions at the level of an analyst, at the level of an NGO, but there is not a single government, a single multilateral organization, the UN, the OAS, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Inter-American Development Bank—not a single organization or government in the world does not recognize our elections.
I don’t mean to rush you, but I have many questions. So if I interrupt you, it’s not because—
Bukele: No. Interrupt whatever you want.
—I’m being disrespectful. You have also stated that El Salvador is the safest country in Latin America. Is this new security sustainable, and can it exist without a state of exception?
Bukele: It’s two questions, Yes, it is sustainable, and yes, it can exist without a state of exception. Everything created by humans requires maintenance, as I’ve mentioned before. Humans build nothing—be it infrastructure, a cohesive society, or security—that doesn’t require maintenance. Everything that is built or made by humans requires maintenance. The moment maintenance is lost, it fails.
Is this sustainable? Yes. Does it require maintenance? Yes. Can that maintenance be done without the state of exception? Yes. Why don’t we lift it right now? We’re not yet ready to lift it, but we know it’s a state of exception, and therefore we hope to lift it as soon as the situation allows us to maintain the conditions without it.
What kind of metrics or other conditions would need to exist for you to end the state of exception?
Bukele: The gangs were a structure of 70,000 gang members; that was the formal gang structure. Obviously, they had half a million collaborators. I’m not saying this; experts and international organizations from before my presidency say this. There’s no influence from me on that number.
In El Salvador, while there’s no exact census of gang members, there were around 70,000 gang members and approximately half a million collaborators. We do not expect to arrest half a million collaborators, as we understand that most of them cooperated because they lived in that world.
However, some collaborators did commit serious crimes that cannot be justified. I’m not referring to simply warning that the police were around— which, unfortunately, was part of Salvadoran reality—but rather to crimes like assisting in a murder. Even if they were not part of the core gang structure, such actions must be punished with imprisonment.
We removed 85% of the gang members from the streets, targeting the entire pyramid structure of the gangs—from the leaders to the cliques and lower ranks. That whole structure fell apart. The vast majority of gang members are in prison. Some fled the country and are in other countries waiting to return. Another group remains hidden. How do we know this? Because we catch a lot of gang members every day.
We estimate that there are still between 8,000 and 9,000 gang members on the streets. Catching 100% of gang members may be impossible since we don’t have a complete census. They might have fled, be in other countries, or still be here, even though they are not currently active. There are still enough who could regroup if we reduce the pressure.
If we remove more gang members from the streets, there won’t be enough left to reorganize. With only 3,000 or 4,000 members, they wouldn’t have enough to form four gangs. It is difficult. It’s also not like we’re going to remove the police. In the near future, we hope to lift the state of exception, return to normal constitutional processes, and maintain the peace we’ve achieved through regular judicial and law enforcement activities.
As you know, groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have reported abuses such as deaths in custody, torture, arbitrary detentions, and violations of due process, as well as thousands of innocent people being imprisoned without due judicial process. Your government has stated that some of this is inevitable. Do you, as president, consider it the cost of security?
Bukele: I believe there are many false narratives in what is reported abroad. I would divide it into two things. One, there are many false narratives. For instance, claims of torture in prisons lack any evidence. As for deaths in our prisons, our death rates are quite low.
Sometimes the figures are not false but the narrative surrounding them. Sometimes, some things are half-truths. It sounds true; they have data to corroborate it, but it hasn’t been presented in the context of the actual situation. For example, international organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International claim there have been over 300 deaths in prisons—308, to be precise—since the emergency regime began.
The state of exception started in March 2022, so it has been two years and three months. This means we’re talking about approximately 140 deaths per year. One hundred forty deaths per year in a prison population of over 100,000 prisoners is a very low rate by Latin American standards and even lower compared to the United States. In the United States, where prisons have amenities like gyms, nutritionists, and Netflix, the mortality rate is higher than in El Salvador. When people hear “300 deaths in prisons,” it sounds like a lot because each number represents a human life, no matter what they were guilty of.
However, it’s important to understand that deaths can occur both inside and outside of prison. We don’t aim to harm anyone, but death is a reality for people both inside and outside of prisons.
There are diseases; some die of old age, and some die of a disease or something. Moreover, since the death rate in El Salvador’s prisons is lower than in many Latin American countries and even lower than that of the United States, it is significant to note that we are not systematically killing people in prison. What would be our gain from killing someone? What for? To see a rise in accusations? We wouldn’t have anything to gain from that.
I think these concerns center on conditions in the prisons, and the innocent people who may end up incarcerated.
Bukele: I understand that prison conditions are much better in the developed world. In fact, people in prisons there often live better than those in average homes in the developing world. However, it is true that conditions in Salvadoran prisons are better than in many North American countries.
I won’t name specific countries to avoid international conflicts. Still, look at prisons in many Latin American nations. You’ll find that drug traffickers and criminal organizations control the majority. These prisons are often run by the underworld, with drug runners giving orders, organizing killings outside, and maintaining a hierarchical structure. Inmates can enter and leave as if they own the place, and weapons are often smuggled inside.
Sometimes, they even send armies to take control of the prison and face off with the inmates. When we compare the conditions in Salvadoran prisons to those in developed countries or the lives of free people, they are definitely harsh and undesirable. However, compared to the reality of many other Latin American countries, Salvadoran prisons are relatively better. They are clean and orderly, with fewer homicides and fights, which starkly contrasts the severe conditions seen in other regions.
I’m not going to name the country, but there was an incident in a prison where a single fight resulted in the deaths of nearly fifty women. Fifty women died in this fight. Wouldn’t it be better to have that prison under control? That there was order, cleanliness, and discipline? That everything is orderly and that everyone has to walk a little. Others need to eat, and when they are done eating, they need to go back to their cells.
I understand it is uncomfortable, but these are prisons, not parks. We are talking about criminals who have, in some cases, killed 10, 15, or even 20 people and have confessed. Compared to the prisons in Latin America—though I acknowledge there may be a few countries with well-managed facilities—the vast majority are in total chaos. This is not the case in El Salvador. If we compare rates such as overcrowding and mortality, they are quite acceptable compared to the rest of Latin America.
The other is, for example, in the case of CECOT, which is our most emblematic prison, it is the most open prison in the world—not open for them to escape, but open for the press. The BBC has visited it, as have YouTubers. That is, it is the most open prison in the world. Whoever asks us for permission to visit, we let them in.
You yourself post about it on TikTok all the time.
Bukele: Yes. I post content about it all the time, but let’s say that what I post might be filtered by the government, so we only post what we want to share. The press visits it. We allow them to interview randomly, “I want to interview that inmate who is in that corner.” They interview them and ask, “Look, have you been tortured?”, “No, I have not been tortured.” You could see if they had some kind of bruise or something.
In other words, some questions are grounded in solid concerns. Still, they should be considered in the context of the reality in Latin America, El Salvador, and the Salvadoran population. Take food, for example. Food is limited in prisons, not in quantity but in quality. For example, tortillas, beans, rice, and cheese. It doesn’t have meat. It doesn’t have shrimp, but what does the average Salvadoran eat? How can I ask the Salvadoran people, who often have modest meals like beans and tortillas for dinner, to pay taxes on those beans and tortillas to provide meat and chicken to prisoners who have killed their family members?
I can’t do that. We need to provide them with food that meets their nutritional needs, including protein and carbohydrates, but at a level comparable to the average Salvadoran’s diet. We cannot offer them a better quality of life than the average Salvadoran, who has endured 50 years of violence, should pay for.
Obviously, it’s also a type of showcase you’re presenting on social media. Now, many across the region are adopting the idea of the “Bukele model.” How do you define the “Bukele model”?
Bukele: I have always said we are open to supporting any government. We recently signed an agreement with the Government of Argentina and have received support requests from various other governments. We are here to support them in anything. For example, I believe that controlling prisons should be a basic requirement for any country.
One thing that surprises me is that many countries don’t do something as simple and effective as blocking cell phone signals in prisons. This involves using a device that disrupts signals, cutting off Wi-Fi, internet, and phone access without violating any rights or using physical force. Blocking cell phone signals would effectively stop the transmission of murder orders and cut off a significant amount of information coming in and out of prisons.
We have offered advice as needed, understanding that each reality is unique. Sometimes, they say, “The Bukele model.” Yes, of course. It’s not called that, but we’re happy to name it however you like. Each country has its own unique reality. It would be important to adapt what applies from El Salvador to each country’s unique situation and disregard what does not fit their context.
Sure. But here, it was obviously only possible after applying the state of exception, right?
Bukele: Yes, of course.
Those are extraordinary measures that most countries would not be able to apply.
Bukele: No, some can. In fact, some countries have applied the exception regime. As I told you a while ago, it depends on which country, it depends on their reality, and it depends on what they are facing. I remember when I was mayor of Nuevo Cuscatlán, the first municipality where I was a public official. We started doing a good job there.
People would say, “It’s just that they do it there because it’s so small. It’s easy.” I would tell them, “Yes, it’s indeed small. We also don’t have a beach; we don’t have natural resources.” If I were in a coastal municipality, perhaps I would have thought of betting on tourism. If we were in a municipality with large tracts of land, we would have bet on agriculture. Since we were in a municipality without those resources, we relied on our proximity to the capital as an advantage.
You always have to do your SWOT, what are your strengths and what are your weaknesses, what are the threats, what are the objectives. In the case of El Salvador, we looked at what we had. We had a weak army, so we strengthened it by doubling its size. We had a police force that needed to be modernized, a prison system that criminals controlled, and a crime phenomenon that we share with some countries but not all.
There was a very large social component to the gang phenomenon. Some experts can talk about it very well, and it is not that they are not right. There were several realities. There were legal realities and practical constraints regarding what we had available in terms of representatives and popular support. There will be other countries that do not have some of these things but have others. They have other advantages: better budgets and better weaponry.
I know of countries that might not have a state of exception, but they have planes, an army 50 times bigger than ours, advanced technology, ample financial resources, and the ability to borrow and print money. We don’t have any of those things. There are always pros and cons, but if a government wants to solve an issue, it should be able to do so.
I don’t think that should be so controversial to say; it should be the norm. Governments are there to solve people’s problems. The first problem to be solved must be the most urgent. Which is the most urgent? It depends on the country in question.In El Salvador, there’s no doubt—and no one can claim otherwise, they say do so but they would be lying—that the most urgent and serious problem we faced at that time was insecurity.
Is it strange for you to see your name, across the world, now be synonymous with iron fist policies on security matters?
Bukele: Yes. I never expected to become the reference for iron fist measures. I have always believed that societies progress through a comprehensive approach to problems. I have never been against this; I’ve said before that crime often arises from a range of factors, usually social. In El Salvador’s case, our problems included a lack of opportunities and the destruction of the social fabric.
The vast majority of gang members joined gangs due to a lack of family, a lack of opportunities, and the social pressure to join. Then, once inside, they were pressured to kill. After killing the first person, they become desensitized. They kill the second, and then they kill the third.
I understand that if that boy had been stopped young and sent to school, we could have taught him other things, and he might have never become a gang member. He would have never killed anyone, nor would it have even occurred to him to kill anyone. He probably would have been a good man. I do not doubt and accept that the state failed him by not providing him with opportunities or a minimum social safety net. The state was a significant factor—probably the main one—in this young man becoming a criminal.
What can I do? I can’t go back in time to 1990 and say, “All these guys are going to become gang members. We’re going to take them to school.” The governments in the 1990s should have done that. They didn’t do it. This is a juvenile social problem that began in the United States related to retail drug sales, and then it arrived here. It wasn’t even that bad when the gangs started. They had their quarrels between them, sometimes there was a dead man, but it was not a giant crime phenomenon.
Then, it became the most dangerous country in the world. Literally the homicide capital of the world, with three times the homicide rate than Haiti has now. Haiti is considered a failed state. El Salvador had triple that homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants. I understand that the state failed [these people,] which should not have happened. However, this criminal who killed 10 people, raped 20 women, and beheaded eight others is beyond reintegration into society. He is deeply sick.
We don’t put them in jail to punish them. We put them in jail to get them off the street. They can’t be on the streets. They cannot be in the community besieging their neighbors. We catch them and remove them from society by putting them in a cell. It is the happiest end for a society, but unfortunately, that’s how it happened. It’s like someone who has damaged their liver from drinking excessively. Then the doctor tells them, “I’m not going to operate on your liver because the problem is your drinking.” So, turn back the clock. Stop drinking, and your liver will be fine.” No way. He needs a transplant or something. We had to come in with a healing solution.
If any country can address these issues sooner with preventive solutions, it would be more noble, better, and have more lasting results. It’s commendable and beneficial if they can achieve that. We couldn’t do it. Now that we have brought peace to the country, we must invest in youth and children to prevent future issues. This way, we can avoid another president needing to impose an exception regime in 15 to 20 years and arrest 1% of the population again.
Hopefully, it won’t be necessary in the future. We aim to lay the foundations for a peaceful society, similar to developed nations, not because of their prison systems or punitive policies but because their societies function effectively.
In 2021, you requested a meeting with the White House during a visit to Washington, and I read it was rejected. Biden officials and U.S. government officials publicly criticized your government, saying they had “deep concerns” about the state of your democracy. Now, three years later, the Biden administration sent a high-level delegation to your inauguration, including Secretary Mayorkas. What caused this turnaround? Did it surprise you?
Bukele: Yes. I think there are several things. I can do a big analysis on that, but I think the main thing is that we won. When we did all this, before starting the war against the gangs, we made changes in the courts, the Prosecutor’s Office, and so on. Just as we are now recognized by 100% of governments and organizations, we were condemned, not by 100% of them, but by all those who were interested in El Salvador. The whole world condemned us. That is, the European Union, individual European countries, and the United States, just to name a few.
Then, we started this fight against the greatest problem that El Salvador had—and again, El Salvador was the world capital of homicides—it was not an isolated problem we had but a problem the world recognized. It was an overwhelming victory, we had no civilian casualties. Fighting an irregular army of 70,000 men could have resulted in civilian casualties from crossfire, as could have been the case anywhere. We didn’t have that here; we didn’t have civilian casualties.
At a minimum, we had single-digit casualties among our security forces. Even the deceased gang members– I don’t know if I have the data here, but even the deceased gang members were very few. Here it is. In 2024, zero dead soldiers. Zero dead police officers. In 2023, two police officers died. Zero soldiers died. Gang members who have died in combat. In 2024, three have died. In 2023, 40 died, and in 2022, 90 died.
That is, during the state of exception, there have been two police casualties, 133 gang members killed, and zero civilian casualties. We turned the world capital of homicides, the most insecure country in the world, into the safest country in the entire Western Hemisphere. What’s more, this year, we already surpassed Canada because, at the end of 2023, we were second with a rate of 2.4. Canada had a rate of 2.0. Canada surpasses us, but this year, our projected rate is 1.8. Well below Canada’s projected rate.
Having achieved these results with this budget, without anyone’s help, if anything with the whole world’s condemnation, forced them to change their discourse. Because I feel that, as you mentioned a while ago, the Bukele model around here [isn something] they want to copy over there. Suddenly, it’s better to embrace it, try to regulate it, and try not to let it get out of the, the–
Not to condemn it publicly?
Bukele: Yes, try not to fight against something that is too popular, not just in El Salvador but in all of Latin America.
The U.S. Treasury Department also sanctioned officials from your government for negotiating with gangs, for prison benefits—can you respond to that?
Bukele: Yes. Again, that was before. They had sanctions from the Department of the Treasury and the Department of State. Surprisingly, they had that policy of sanctions applied only to the three countries of northern Central America, not to the others or other countries in the world.
These lists were specifically for these countries, demonstrating the political nature of the sanctions. However, that happened before. Some might have stayed on the list because getting out of it is hard. Now, it’s their problem. I did think at that time that it was absurd. To say that we negotiated with the gangs– What kind of negotiation? That we were going to finish them off and wipe them off the map, that they were going to jail?
To lower the level of violence, right?
Bukele: Well, but what did we give the gang members in exchange?
Allegedly, prison benefits.
Bukele: Well, let’s say they were given prison benefits because, again, it’s easy to start narratives, but let’s get to the facts. Even before the emergency regime, the prisons had no signal in El Salvador. There are videos from 2013 and 2012. There used to be YouTube videos posted by gangs where they are in the prisons with prostitutes, strippers, parties, doing drugs.
Any Salvadoran knows this, as well as anyone who has studied the phenomenon of violence in El Salvador. There were benefits in prison. What’s more, they say they sanctioned officials for negotiating with gangs. In 2012 and 2013, there was a negotiation with gangs here in El Salvador, during which the Secretary General of the OAS came to El Salvador to negotiate. During this time, gang members handed over weapons to him.
He said, “I congratulate El Salvador for negotiating with the gangs.” There was a negotiation with gangs where the government, the Catholic Church, and the Organization of American States were present. There was international funding for that negotiation with the gangs. At that time, gang members were freely entering and leaving the prisons. There are videos on YouTube showing them partying with prostitutes and strippers and doing drugs. These videos are still available online; anyone can find them.
Since we took over, there have been no videos of prostitutes, strippers, or gang members on the streets meeting with the Secretary General of the OAS. There is no signal for such activities, and gang members are not on the streets. The prisons have been extremely orderly. It is fully verified and what they say is, “No, but they gave them prison benefits.”
Aren’t gang members saying now, “Well, before, I had the right to have internet, prostitutes, drugs, and strippers, to leave and come back, and to order murders from here. They have taken all that away from me, but they are going to give me a hamburger at Christmas.”
Could it be the other way around? Those who negotiated prison benefits with gang members—not just the inmates—are implicated. There are journalistic investigations and international reports documenting these issues. It was in question whether the Army had allowed gang members to use the shooting ranges. There are photographs and videos of gang members using the Army’s shooting ranges to practice shooting.
Obviously, they practice hitting people in the head and heart, and the Army of El Salvador lent the shooting ranges to gang members. That’s documented. There is no documentation that this is being done now. On the contrary, the Army goes with the police, catches them, and puts them in jail. The idea that we negotiated benefits, either with those on the outside or those on the inside, doesn’t fit well.
To confirm, you are saying that your government never negotiated with the gangs and that what the U.S. government is saying is false?
Bukele: It’s totally false. What shows this is not what I say, as I will always claim we’ve done things well—that’s to be expected. But what is real is that—what exactly is the benefit? Moreover, the same people who accuse us of giving benefits to gang members are the same people who accuse us of being very hard on gang members.
You can’t have it [both ways]. Either we give benefits to the gang members, or we are very hard on the gang members, but you can’t have both. It makes no sense. Another important thing. One of those sanctioned—I’m not defending him—may have legal issues to address. That will be his problem. We have a very strong justice system here, regardless of who is involved, and we’ve demonstrated that from the cabinet on down. We address crimes impartially, no matter who the individual is.
But there is one reality, and you can verify it. Journalists have verified it. You can see it on the ground and in the prisons. The most orderly prisons in Latin America are those of El Salvador. Isn’t it suspicious that in the prisons, where the head of the prison oversees facilities controlled by drug traffickers and criminals, these criminals have free rein? When the Army arrives, they face gunfire from within the prison, and yet the prison officials in charge are not punished.
The US government has sanctioned no heads of prisons where crime and drug traffickers are prevalent. The only prison where there is total order, where criminals and drug traffickers do not rule, and where no one is ordering murders is the one that has been sanctioned.
I don’t care. They can do whatever they want, and I told them this in several meetings. It’s their country, and they have the right to impose sanctions and make decisions as they see fit. However, it seems a bit illogical and counterintuitive that they sanctioned the head of the only prison with order in Latin America. In contrast, other prisons, where drug traffickers and criminals have control, have not faced similar sanctions.
I’m not saying they deserve them, but it appears contradictory that the only well-managed facility is penalized. At the same time, those with significant issues remain unsanctioned. I don’t want to get into conspiracy theories, but it seems a little counterintuitive, at least to me.
I also want to ask you about the adoption of Bitcoin in El Salvador, especially now that you are going to focus more on the economy. In your opinion, has it been a success?
Bukele: Yes and no; a lot more could definitely be done. Bitcoin hasn’t had the widespread adoption we hoped for. Many Salvadorans use it; The majority of large businesses in the country have it. You can go to a McDonald’s, a supermarket, or a hotel and pay with Bitcoin. It hasn’t had the adoption we expected. The positive aspect is that it is voluntary; we have never forced anyone to adopt it. We offered it as an option, and those who chose to use it have benefited from the rise in Bitcoin.
Moreover, those who saved in Bitcoin when we launched it must have made a lot of money. Thank God for that. It’s good that people have those earnings. Those who decided not to use it did not have those gains. If they use it now, they will probably have gains in the future. If they do not want to use it, this is a free country. I expected more adoption, definitely, but we always prided ourselves on being a free country, free in every way.
Sometimes, there’s confusion because of our tough stance on gangs. However, we are a free country. For example, I believe few countries can say this: we have never repressed a demonstration. In five years of government, we have never used a tear gas can or a baton.
You won’t find a photograph of one of our police officers hitting someone with a baton. There just aren’t any. I am not saying we will never do it […] still, we have never needed to use a single tear gas can. When the opposition protests, we even withdraw the police to avoid misunderstandings or potential provocations. We prefer to remove the police and let them stain the monuments and break windows, and then we go in and repair the damage.
It is the same with the Bitcoin issue. For me, it is an option we have given to Salvadorans. I’m not going to say it’s the currency of the future, but there’s a lot of future in that currency. I’m not the only one saying it. I wasn’t among the first, but we were still few in 2021. Right now, you have the largest funds in the world, literally the largest funds in the world. BlackRock has the largest Bitcoin ETF.
You bet a lot on Bitcoin.
Bukele: El Salvador invested $135 million. Now, we have $400 million in Bitcoin in the public wallet alone. We have done well as a government. Salvadorans who used and saved it have done very well for obvious reasons, such as the price increase. Those who have not used it have no obligation to use it. The currency that circulates the most in El Salvador is the United States dollar.
I feel that it could have worked better, and there is still time to make some improvements, but it hasn’t resulted in anything negative. On the contrary, it gave us branding, it brought us investments, it brought us tourism.
And a lot of attention.
Bukele: It’s brought us a lot of positive attention. Some criticism, but it is to be expected. What it has brought is financial inclusion for many people and profit for many others. It has brought profit to the country. The fact that major Wall Street companies are now engaging in it—something that seemed unthinkable three years ago when we did it—shows its impact. Some countries already hold reserves in Bitcoin or are investing in Bitcoin and Bitcoin mining. It is already becoming a topic of debate in the US presidential campaign.
In the end, the fact of being a “First Mover,” I think, gives us a small advantage, as far as it goes. I feel that it could have been much better. I wouldn’t consider it a resounding success. Still, I do believe that the positive outcomes outweigh the negative, and the issues that have been highlighted are relatively minor.
Even the International Monetary Fund itself stated in its report last year, “The risks of Bitcoin in El Salvador have not materialized,” meaning the risks they anticipated did not come to pass. We have seen nothing but benefits. As many as I would have wanted? No, but did it bring something bad? No. It’s a net positive.
Speaking of your image, you’ve obviously built much of your political career through social media. You have more followers on Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok than the population of your country. A significant number of your posts are in English. Who is your audience?
Bukele: Yes. 100% of my Facebook posts are in Spanish. 100% of my messages on Instagram are in Spanish or both languages, first Spanish and then English. 100% of my messages on TikTok are in Spanish or both languages, first Spanish and then English. On Twitter, I post some messages in English because we have seen a lot of engagement from the United States. That social media platform is more politicized than the others. Normal people tend to be more active on the other platforms. Normal people like Instagram more—
Salvadorans?
Bukele -— they like TikTok more. Yes, Salvadorans and normal people around the world. That is, young people, people who are not so involved in politics use Instagram more.
But you love Twitter.
Bukele: Yes, because I’m a politician.
Do you write your own posts?
Bukele: Yes, I write them, but we noticed an interesting audience for our country’s agenda and how we project our country on Twitter (now known as X), and for us, it is an opportunity. We do not pay for advertising in other countries or have the budget. We cannot compete with bigger tourist destinations or those attracting major investors. However, we’ve found that my social media presence has served as a window for investors, investment funds, banks, important figures, and politicians. Why not use it for what we want to do and our goals as a country?
In your Twitter bio you call yourself a “Philosopher King.” What does that mean?
Bukele: It is the concept that a leader should be a philosopher before he is a king. Obviously, I am neither a philosopher nor a king. Still, this concept is attributed to Marcus Aurelius, who is considered the first Philosopher King.
It describes someone who meditates on all angles, analyzes every possibility within a decision, and asks, “What is the best decision I can make for the people I serve?” In my case, that would be the Salvadoran people.
The decisions, or at least what I aspire to, are not based on what is most popular or what offers the fastest return. Instead of, “What is best for me personally or our political movement?” the question is, “What is in the best interest of my people and the future of my country?” That way of thinking, analyzing, questioning, and philosophizing before making a decision is a style of government. I don’t use that biography on other platforms.
It’s for a different audience?
Bukele: I use the term “Philosopher King” primarily on X because, while not everyone may understand it, many on that platform grasp what I mean. I believe presidents, chancellors, prime ministers, and all heads of government should aspire to be more like Philosopher Kings. They should strive to be thoughtful leaders rather than the typical politician who is hated by their people.
You have also used your [Twitter] bio to mock those who call you a dictator. Does it bother you that the world considers you an authoritarian?
Bukele: Yes and no. It bothers me when arguments are presented in a way that have little grounding in reality. However, it doesn’t bother me to the extent that I think it’s a reality. I believe it’s important to address these arguments, recognizing that everything comes at a cost. Everything in life has a cost. For example, I like what I do, but it comes with various costs. I can’t walk quietly down the street and go out with my daughters for a walk. That is to say, there is a cost.
I once said that I had traded my security. I used to be the safest person in the country because I had bodyguards, armored cars, and everything, and the country was insecure. I traded my security for that of the Salvadoran people. Now the country has safety, but I do not, because drug traffickers, gang members, criminals, and mafias now target me to undermine the benefits we are providing to Salvadorans. As I said, everything in life has a cost, and the cost of being called authoritarian is too small to bother me much. Now, I don’t like it, but it’s not like it keeps me up at night either.
You’ve made significant changes in your first term. You are quite young. Would you run again if Salvadoran voters want you to continue in office in 2029?
Bukele: I can’t run for president again according to the Constitution because of the prohibition established by Article 152. Also, we have an agreement with my wife that this is my last term.
Really?
Yes.
You will be only 47 years old when you leave office.
Bukele: Yes.
Have you thought about what comes next?
Bukele: No, not yet. It will be a challenge because I don’t see myself returning to the corporate world. I don’t know. The tooth’s response to the lip would be to write a book or something along those lines, but I’m not sure. I don’t think about what I will do in 2029.
I’m going to ask you one more question. Obviously—I had many more questions, but never mind.
Bukele: I have the World Bank outside. Otherwise, I would gladly give you three more hours.
You obviously have a lot to say. Why don’t you speak to the press more?
Bukele: I used to do it more, but I feel like I used to do it because I was younger. I’m not so young anymore. Yes, I am somewhat young but not as young as before; I am not a boy. Previously, I had well-grounded criteria based on my ideology, and journalism was something I respected greatly. I saw it as a noble profession dedicated to seeking the truth and essential for holding power accountable and keeping the public informed.
I’m not sure if journalism has changed over time or if I’ve come to see reality. Still, I’ve found that, for the most part, journalism often functions as propaganda. The difference is that state propaganda at least openly acknowledges that it is propaganda. That is, we put out a spot, and no one hides that it is propaganda. When journalism publishes an article, people think it’s journalism. When I observe the agendas, I even see journalists defending the idea that journalism must have an agenda. These journalists defend the fact that journalism should follow an agenda instead of seeking the truth, all to become a form of counter-power.
I see falsehoods written about us and things that are overlooked about others. I know that things change, but in some countries, media outlets are closed, and journalists are arrested. Yet, we are condemned despite having never arrested any journalists or closed any media outlets. One realizes that there is almost always an agenda behind journalism. The journalism I once respected often aligns with that agenda, serving the interests of financiers or editorial boards with their own commitments.
I began to see journalism differently, and I started to enjoy talking to the press less. With the rise of social media, it’s a way to reach the population directly without going through the press filter. If I don’t need to talk to the press– and I’m not talking about those present, I’m not talking about you. I recognize it and assume you are a great journalist; that’s why you work for a great media outlet and everything.
I have less respect for journalism than I had before, and I don’t feel the need to talk to them like before, so I rarely give interviews […] I feel that it becomes unnecessary. It’s a profession that has a very noble origin. It changed the world with printing. Everything changed then, and we can talk about it, but that’s another topic.
I feel I am not a journalist and should not tell journalists what to do. Still, I believe journalism should somehow return to its origins or at least to what I once thought it was, rather than continuing as it is now.
There is a lot of interest in your country, and I know that many other journalists would like to talk to you.
Bukele: Maybe.
Thank you very much.
Following the release of new crime statistics from the Justice Department, former President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign on Thursday released a blistering statement, slamming ABC’s David Muir, who was one of the moderators of Tuesday’s presidential debate.
Trump commented during the debate that crime rates, especially those caused by illegal immigrants, have drastically risen during the Biden-Harris administration. But Muir shot back: “As you know, the FBI says overall violent crime is coming down in this country.”
The Trump campaign highlighted the figures in the Justice Department’s “National Crime Victimization Survey,” which was released on Thursday.
The survey found that violent crime was up 37% from 2020 to 2023, rape is up 42%, robbery is up 63%, and stranger violence is up 61%.
“If Kamala is given another four years and the chance to implement her weak-on-crime, defund the police, no cash bail policies, America will continue to turn into a crime-ridden hellhole for illegal immigrants, Venezuelan gangsters, and drug dealers,” Trump campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said in a statement.
“Only President Trump will restore law and order, protect our police, secure the border, deport illegal immigrants, and prosecute criminals to the fullest extent of the law.”
“If you want to be safe, VOTE TRUMP,” she added.
Muir, who moderated the debate in Philadelphia alongside ABC’s Linsey Davis, fact-checked Trump at least four times during the showdown.
Other topics the moderators fact-checked the former president on included abortion, and whether Haitian migrants in Ohio are eating pets.
A voting machine company’s defamation lawsuit against Newsmax appears to be headed toward trial following a Delaware judge’s ruling on Thursday.
Florida-based Smartmatic accused Newsmax and other conservative media outlets of airing defamatory statements that implied the company rigged the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Newsmax argued it was reporting on newsworthy allegations made by former President Trump and his allies, though the company previously issued a clarification saying “not reported as true certain claims made about these companies.”
Newsmax and Smartmatic asked Superior Court Judge Eric Davis to rule in their favor without the case going to trial. Davis granted partial summary judgment but said a jury will decide key issues. The trial is scheduled to start Sept. 30, The Associated Press reported.
Smartmatic has maintained it provided election machinery and software for the 2020 election only in Los Angeles, not where Trump and his supporters contested the results.
Smartmatic’s lawsuit against Newsmax is similar to one filed against One America News Network (OANN). Smartmatic and OANN had “resolved its litigation” in April through a “confidential settlement.” Smartmatic’s defamation litigation against Fox News is still pending.
The judge said Thursday that not every allegedly defamatory statement by Newsmax against the voting company was materially false, meaning he would allow the media organization to “contest falsity” Smartmatic’s connections with Venezuela, which Newsmax made statements about.
A federal grand jury in Florida indicted three current and former Smartmatic executives for a $1 million scheme to put voting machines in the Philippines. Newsmax detailed Smartmatic’s “checkered history” in court papers, the AP reported.
David ruled Smartmatic is a “limited public figure,” meaning for defamation, the company must show Newsmax acted with “actual malice” by purposefully disregarding the truth.
He also determined that Newsmax could assert a “neutral reporting privilege,” which the company says it did since the statements of election fraud were made by third parties on non-Newsmax platforms.
Still, the judge determined there was no evidence that Newsmax acted with “evil intent.” A jury must decide whether the company acted with actual malice and whether Smartmatic is entitled to damages, Davis ruled Thursday, according to the AP.
Smartmatic said it “very much” looks forward to explaining the company’s losses to a jury to receive damages, though it’s unlikely Newsmax would want the case to go before a jury and could settle before it gets to that point.
In a statement to The Hill, Smartmatic said it will continue to review the ruling but argues Newsmax knew it was reporting false allegations.
“Smartmatic is pleased to have the opportunity to prove this to a jury in court,” Erik Connolly, Smartmatic’s lead trial attorney, said in a statement.
“The court’s decision is the latest victory for Smartmatic in the lawsuits it has filed against individuals and media organizations that defamed the company following the 2020 US election.”
Newsmax previously told The Hill the company itself never made “a claim of impropriety about Smartmatic, its ownership or software.”
“While Newsmax is disappointed that any part of Smartmatic’s lawsuit is going to trail, as we believe it is a threat to a free press, we are pleased that the Court found no evidence that Newsmax acted with evil intent toward Smartmatic and that the neutral and fair reporting privileges are available to Newsmax at trial,” spokesperson Bill Daddi said in a statement to CNN.
It’s not one election, but 51, that pick the US president. Every state and the District of Columbia has its own rules and deadlines for voting and for counting votes.
The first voting officially was already supposed to be underway with mail-in ballots in the key state of North Carolina, but that process was delayed by courts that ruled ballots must be reprinted without the option of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who suspended his campaign and endorsed former President Donald Trump.
Absentee ballots are now officially available in Alabama, although, somewhat ironically, it is a state that discourages early voting.
Others will follow in the weeks to come.
Here’s what to know:
When do voting by mail and early voting start?
Most states will not offer mail-in ballots until later in September or October. The next firm date on the calendar is September 19, when ballots are supposed to be available in the key state of Wisconsin. For all states, ballots must begin to be sent to military and overseas voters by September 21.
Each state has its own rules and deadlines for how and when to request a mail-in ballot and by when those ballots must be returned. In some states, mail ballots must be in the hands of election officials before polls close, but others will count ballots that arrive after Election Day if they were postmarked earlier.
Washington, for instance, is one of the handful of states that conducts nearly all of its voting entirely by mail and will accept a mail-in ballot until results are certified in late November so long as it is postmarked by Election Day.
Early voting may also be done in person in most states, but that process does not get underway until later in September. Widespread early voting will begin on September 20 in Minnesota, South Dakota and Virginia.
Can everyone vote early?
No. Thirty-six states plus Washington, DC, allow all voters to cast ballots by mail.
Eight of those states and Washington, DC, send a ballot automatically to all voters. Fourteen states, by contrast, require some kind of excuse for early or mail-in voting. These excuses can range from being required to work to volunteering at a polling place to caring for a sick relative.
Is the campaign over?
Far from it. Vice President Kamala Harris and Trump just held a contentious debate on September 10. The candidates for vice president, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, will take part in a debate on October 1.
Both campaigns will also focus events and get-out-the vote efforts on seven states considered to be up for grabs. More and more Americans will be voting all the while.
Do most people know who they’ll vote for?
Probably, yes. In a set of CNN polls conducted by SSRS in battleground states, only an average of 15% of voters said they have not yet firmly decided their choice. This is actually a sizable portion and suggests the outcome of the presidential race is far from certain, especially since those battleground state polls showed close matches in each state.
In 2020, CNN exit polls showed that nearly three-quarters of voters made up their minds before September. Only 5% of exit poll respondents said they made up their minds in the week before Election Day.
When and in what manner will most people vote?
In 2020, most people voted early or by mail, but those figures were amplified by the special circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic. A little less than half of voters in 2020 voted by mail, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted after Election Day. About a quarter of voters cast ballots in person before Election Day, and about a quarter of voters cast ballots in person on Election Day, according to that survey.
Then-President Trump spoke out against voting by mail in 2020, part of his unfounded claims of voter fraud, and as a result, Republicans were less likely to cast mail-in ballots. The largest portion of Trump voters, 37%, cast ballots in person on Election Day, according to Pew. For comparison, just 17% of Joe Biden voters cast ballots in person on Election Day. Nearly 60% of Biden voters cast absentee or mail-in ballots.
Those figures could change this year. Some states will not be as accommodating of early or mail-in voting in 2024. And with the Covid-19 pandemic less of a factor, more voters may decide to vote in person instead of by mail.
Trump still makes false claims of voter fraud and still doesn’t like the idea of mail-in voting, although he has routinely voted that way himself. Republicans, despite Trump’s warnings, are encouraging vote-by-mail in many places.
How can I make sure my mail-in ballot is counted?
Read the directions! Each state is different, but many have very specific directions for how mail-in ballots must be returned.
For people voting by mail in North Carolina, for instance, the signature of either two witnesses or a notary is required along with a photocopy of a photo ID.
In Pennsylvania, voters must write the date on the outside of their envelope. A Pennsylvania state court recently ruled, however, that ballots without that date cannot be thrown out.
Look for more of these questions to be answered in court around the country in the coming weeks.
For verification, some states require a photocopy of your ID, while others require a driver’s license number or the last four digits of your Social Security number.
In many states, mail-in ballots require a signature that will be compared with the signature on your driver’s license or voter registration card, so make sure you don’t adopt a new signature for the election.
Also make sure that you put your ballot in the mail with plenty of time to spare. If it gets closer to Election Day, consider returning your ballot in person to avoid the possibility of mail delays.
What if I make a mistake that jeopardizes my ballot?
Frequently, voters can monitor when their ballot is received and its status online. If a ballot is rejected, most states have a ballot curing process – meaning they will notify the voter, and there is a process for fixing, or curing, the problem.
What if I’m in the military or live overseas?
You can vote, either by requesting an absentee ballot from your stateside local jurisdiction or through the Federal Voting Assistance Program. Different rules can apply to people voting from oversees, so don’t wait until the last minute.
What if I’m not registered to vote?
First, check your registration status. Many states offer voter registration when obtaining a driver’s license.
If you’re not registered right now, no problem. Voter registration deadlines don’t kick in until October, and they vary by state.
Rhode Island is the first state to cut off voter registration at one month before Election Day on October 5. But it is also among the 23 states and the District of Columbia that allow Election Day registration.
Alaska and Rhode Island are unique because they only allow Election Day registration in the presidential election. By that time, most Americans may already have voted.
The union representing the nation’s postal workers, who will handle millions of ballots as part of the mass vote-by-mail system, endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for president on Thursday.
Voters are being asked to trust an election system in which a key part of the process of casting votes is controlled by an organization loyal to one candidate.
In a press statement, the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) announced its endorsement:
The nation’s 290,000 active and retired city letter carriers represented by the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) are proud to announce our endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris and Governor Tim Walz to serve as the next president and vice president of the United States.
…
As a local prosecutor, state attorney general, senator, and vice president, Kamala Harris is a proven supporter of working families, organized labor, and the Postal Service. As a senator, she was instrumental in advocating for essential relief for the Postal Service at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. She served as vice president of the administration that signed the Postal Service Reform Act into law. She is a fierce defender of civil rights, voting rights, and our democratic system.
Governor Walz is a union brother and veteran. He is a former public school teacher who has devoted his life to public service. As governor, he has kept working families at the forefront by enacting a paid family and medical leave program, child tax credits, and universal free school meals for all Minnesota students.
The Pew Research Center reported in July that Republicans and Democrats continue to have vastly divergent views on vote-by-mail. 82% of Democrats say it should be freely available without excuse; only 37% of Republicans agree.
Similarly, 63% of Republicans say that making it easier to register and vote would make elections less secure, while only 20% of Democrats agree. Universal vote-by-mail and other changes were imposed in many states in 2020 by judicial fiat, usually after Democrats sued to impose reforms over the objections of Republicans.
If you vote by mail you have to give your ballot to someone whose union has endorsed one side in the election. How this is even legal at all is completely baffling. https://t.co/uOjXYPGfrk
— Joel Pollak (@joelpollak) September 13, 2024
Some Republican-governed states have tightened rules around the practice, but it remains widespread.
Few other democracies in the world use vote-by-mail, and many democracies refuse to allow absentee voting except in limited circumstances.
A man wearing a Palestinian pin was shot in Newton, Massachusetts Thursday evening after he charged across a street and tackled a pro-Israel veteran protester.
In a video shared with The Daily Wire, the man with the pin, sporting a surgical mask around his neck, stood across the street shouting at the group of 10 protesters, calling them “sick” and accusing them of “defending genocide.”
BREAKING: Anti-Israel man shot in stomach after charging through traffic to tackle a man at a pro-Israel demonstration outside Boston in Newton, Massachusetts.
Footage obtained exclusively by @KassyAkiva: pic.twitter.com/nsGN3MQVAO
— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) September 13, 2024
Scott Hayes, 47, of Framingham, Mass., was getting ready to leave when the assailant began yelling at the group, showing his middle finger and shouting at the protesters.
In the next video, the man charges across the street through traffic and tackles Hayes, an Iraq War veteran, who was carrying an American flag during the protest. Seconds later, the gun was discharged and the man was shot in the stomach during their tussle on the ground, another video angle shows.
Hayes then places the gun on the sidewalk behind him as bystanders try to break the two apart. After the altercation, Hayes told bystanders to call 911, and tended to wounds of the man who tackled him, a video shared with The Daily Wire shows.
Watch:
In another video, the man who fired the gun is seen providing medical care to the man who tackled him before first responders arrived. pic.twitter.com/wMtoowakr9
— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) September 13, 2024
Hayes is being charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and violation of a constitutional right causing injury, Middlesex County District Attorney Marian Ryan said. Ryan said the veteran had full legal possession of the gun, according to Boston 25 News. The veteran’s fellow protesters say they were not aware he had a gun, but believe he was acting in self defense.
The man shot reportedly suffered life-threatening injuries.
Hayes was with a group of pro-Israel individuals hold American, Israeli, and Pahlavi Iranian flags in various parts of Massachusetts to raise awareness about the hostages and the troubles of the Iranian regime. Newton, a suburb of Boston and considered one of the most Jewish cities in the United States, with Jews comprising between 20-30% of the population, according to Forward.
Aidin, a pro-Israel Iranian who runs the From Boston to Iran group and was present at the altercation, told The Daily Wire that he was not sure how the gun was discharged.
“I saw him bring his hand up to the veteran and I tried to go closer until I heard the shot fired.”
“We’ve been to standouts like this often and nothing like this has ever happened,” he said, declining to give his last name. “I was shocked when the man ran across the street and had no idea why he would do that.”
Aidin said he was not sure why the man charged Hayes instead of the other members of the group. He also said the person shot was in stable condition.
News
Robin DiAngelo Breaks ‘Am I Racist?’ Silence, Says She Got Played by ‘Borat-Style Mockumentary’
Anti-racism activist Robin DiAngelo is breaking her silence on the upcoming ‘Am I Racist?’ film, laying out how Daily Wire host Matt Walsh “deceived” her into appearing in what she describes as “a Borat-style mockumentary…designed to humiliate and discredit anti-racist educators and activists.”
In a note on her website titled “About That Film,” the “White Fragility” author says the “sequence of events” that ended with her taking $30 out of her purse to pay reparations to a black producer on set was “unsettling,” and that she figured out she “had been played” before the trailer for the film was released in July.
“After reviewing the sequence of events and discussing it with colleagues, I realized that they had lied about their agenda and I had been played,” DiAngelo says.
But it wasn’t until after seeing the trailer for the film, which opens in theaters across the country this Friday, that she realized the interview was not “meant to support the anti-racist cause.”
“It is not titled Shades of Justice nor is it meant to support the anti-racist cause,” DiAngelo writes. “It is a Borat-style mockumentary titled Am I Racist? and designed to humiliate and discredit anti-racist educators and activists.”
DiAngelo is featured in the film, one of Walsh’s many interview subjects. Walsh, sporting a man bun, convinces DiAngelo she had a “powerful opportunity” to display her commitment to anti-racism by giving his black producer, Ben, money from her purse.
In her statement, DiAngelo claims she detected the wig and other things that “felt off,” but thought that Walsh “seemed earnest.”
“When I arrived for the interview, a few things felt off,” DiAngelo writes. “The grips would not make eye contact with me and the interviewer, who was introduced as ‘Matt,’ appeared to be wearing an ill-fitting wig. Matt presented himself as someone new to antiracist work and seemed earnest, and his questions did not come across as adversarial.”
She says the reparations segment, however, “got weird.” Here’s how she remembers it:
“Matt asked what I thought about reparations for Black Americans. I said that I agreed with reparations but that it was not my area of expertise. He then pulled up a chair and invited a Black crew-member who went by “Ben” to sit with us, took out his wallet and handed Ben some cash. He said that if I believed in reparations, I should also give Ben cash. While some Black people have asked white people to engage in reparations by giving directly to individuals, reparations are generally understood as a systemic approach to past and current injustice. The way Matt set this up felt intended to put Ben and I on the spot. Because Matt was pushing this on us, I expressed my discomfort and checked in with Ben, to be sure he was okay with receiving cash in this way. Ben reassured me that he was, so I went to my wallet and handed him my cash and the interview ended.”
DiAngelo confesses that she took $15,000 to do the interview, but has since donated the money to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. It is unclear whether she included the $30 reparations payment in her donation.
DiAngelo says she will not be “deceived” again, and that she will not see the film.
“This experience has reinforced for me how critically important it is to do in-depth background research before making yourself vulnerable to people you don’t know, or believing and sharing what you see online,” she says.
“I have not seen the film nor do I plan to watch it, so I don’t know what they have used of my interview or how they have edited it.”
She also says that the agenda for the film is clear, quoting Daily Wire co-CEO Jeremy Boreing’s statement that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is the “next pillar of the woke mind virus that’s about to topple.”
DiAngelo ends her statement with a prediction: “They will not prevail in their efforts to stop the work for racial justice.”
Walsh responded to DiAngelo’s statement on X, saying she was “correct” in her assessment of his intentions.
My favorite part of this wonderful statement is that she says she noticed my “ill fitting wig” when she first sat down with me. And yet for some reason she still did the interview.
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) September 12, 2024
Walsh said his “favorite part” of the statement was her critique of his hair, and suggestion that she knew something was up the whole time.
“My favorite part of this wonderful statement is that she says she noticed my ‘ill fitting wig’ when she first sat down with me,” Walsh said. “And yet for some reason she still did the interview.”
Am I Racist? opens on Friday in over 1,500 theaters. DiAngelo deactivated her social media accounts last month.
The Mexican government has started busing migrants to the U.S. border if they have appointments under a controversial use of a phone app implemented by the Biden administration that allows migrants to be paroled into the U.S.
The Mexican National Institute of Migration posted the video of what it said was the first bus transporting “foreigners” from Tapachula, in the south of the country near Guatemala, to Reynosa near the U.S. border. It said that migrants will attend their appointments scheduled via the CBP One app. It is part of an “Emerging Safe Mobility Corridor” launched by the Mexican government last month.
#Video 🎥| Salida del primer autobús que trasladó de Tapachula, Chiapas a Reynosa, Tamaulipas a personas extranjeras que acudirán a su cita CBP One y que forma parte de la habilitación del Corredor Emergente de Movilidad Segura, que puso en marcha el gobierno mexicano a través de… pic.twitter.com/j1dBQSEGQo
— INM (@INAMI_mx) September 11, 2024
The CBP One app was expanded during the Biden administration to allow up to 1,450 migrants per day to schedule an appointment at a U.S. port of entry to be paroled into the U.S. if they meet certain conditions. The app also allows them to upload documents ahead of that appointment.
The Biden administration has said that the app is a key part of its migration strategy, which involves increasing funding to the border while expanding “lawful” migration pathways. It has also used the app to allow up to 30,000 nationals from four countries to fly directly into the U.S. after being approved.
But Republicans have accused the administration of abusing humanitarian parole, which is supposed to be used on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. They have said that the administration is waving in migrants quasi-legally, and have pointed to numbers suggesting that over 95% of migrants who schedule an appointment are allowed in.
The Mexican government announced in a press release last month the plan to transport foreigners to the U.S. border as part of a “safe mobility corridor.” Mexico said it will issue a temporary 20-day visa for those with a confirmed CBP One appointment, and give them transportation as well as food.
The app recently came under fire from a DHS Inspector General report, which found issues with vetting among other problems with the app.
“Although CBP uses biographic and biometric information submitted to CBP One to determine whether arriving noncitizens have derogatory records, it does not leverage the information to identify suspicious trends as part of its pre-arrival vetting procedures,” the report said.
Meanwhile, immigration has become a top election issue after a three-year crisis at the southern border that repeatedly smashed records. The Biden administration has called for the backing of a bipartisan Senate bill that would increase funding for the border. It has blamed the crisis on the failure of Congress to provide that funding.
DHS is also pointing to a sharp decrease in apprehensions since President Biden signed an order to allow authorities to temporarily suspend the entry of illegal immigrants across the border. Officials say that has led to a 50% decrease in apprehensions since that time. It also says it has removed more than 131,000 individuals to 144 countries, including 420 international deportation flights. Officials say they have also tripled the percentage of non-citizens processed through Expedited Removal to Mexico while in custody.
Republicans, including former President Trump, have blamed the crisis on the policies of the Biden administration and the rolling back of what they see as successful Trump-era policies. Trump has promised to shut down parole policies and launch a massive deportation operation if elected in November.
Tens of thousands of Boeing workers walked off the job on Sept. 13 after rejecting a contract deal, marking the first strike since 2008.
Members of two local unions of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers overwhelmingly voted on Thursday night to reject the latest contract offer and initiate a strike. According to the unions, 94.6 percent voted to reject the contract, and 96 percent supported walking off the job. The strike began at midnight.
The 33,000 striking workers represent 22 percent of Boeing’s workforce. The Virginia-based company manufactures planes and other products.
Boeing and the unions said at the weekend that they had reached a tentative agreement on a new contract, which includes changes such as raising the starting base pay from at least $12 an hour to $21 an hour, as well as offering the option to receive a pension as a lump sum payment upon retirement.
“We have achieved everything we could in bargaining, short of a strike. We recommended acceptance because we can’t guarantee we can achieve more in a strike. But that is your decision to make and is a decision that we will protect and support, no matter what,” Jon Holden, president of the Aerospace Machinists District 751 union, said in an open letter on Monday.
While announcing the vote result days later, Holden said the strike “is about respect, this is about addressing the past, and this is about fighting for our future.”
“We strike at midnight,” he said, as members chanted: “Strike! Strike! Strike!”
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers said it supported the strike.
“We are incredibly proud of the hard work and dedication shown by the negotiating teams from District 751 and W24 and the unwavering solidarity of our membership. Their tireless efforts have been on display throughout this entire process. Now, they will regroup and begin planning the next steps on securing an agreement that our membership can approve,” the association said in a statement.
Boeing said in a statement Thursday that “we remain committed to resetting our relationship with our employees and the union, and we are ready to get back to the table to reach a new agreement.”
The 2008 Boeing strike lasted 52 days and cost Boeing an estimated $100 million a day. The contract that was reached to end the strike had been extended twice.
According to a pre-vote note from investment bank TD Cowen, a 50-day strike could cost Boeing $3 billion to $3.5 billion of cash flow.
The striking workers primarily work in the Seattle and Portland areas, building the 737 MAX and other aircraft.
“The key question now is on the duration of the strike given the gap between the proposed wage increase and union members request,” Jefferies analyst Chloe Lemarie said in a note, adding that a long strike represents a key risk for 737 MAX production levels.
Shortly after midnight, striking workers started to gather outside the entrances of Boeing factories in the Seattle area. Many waved placards that read: ‘On Strike Against Boeing’, as drivers passed and honked their car horns.
“I’m willing to strike for two months or even longer. Let’s go as long as it takes to get what we deserve,” said James Mann, a 26-year-old who works in a wings division at Boeing.
Neither the White House nor the presidential candidates, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, has commented on the strike as of yet.
A Georgia judge dismissed two counts Thursday against former President Donald Trump in the Georgia 2020 election interference case.
Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee said the two counts fall under federal jurisdiction. Both counts deal with conspiracy and filing false documents. Five counts of the original indictment against Trump have now been dismissed.
Three were dropped earlier this year by Judge McAfee, who ruled that the charges lacked detail. Trump now faces eight remaining counts in the case, out of the original 13.
Trump’s lawyers said in a statement, “President Trump and his legal team in Georgia have prevailed once again.”
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who brought the charges against Trump, declined to comment.
The proceedings in the Trump case have been temporarily halted since June, while the Georgia Court of Appeals reviews McAfee’s ruling allowing Willis to continue prosecuting the case.
In April, Willis acknowledged that she had a romantic relationship with lawyer Nathan Wade, whom she appointed to lead the prosecution against Trump.
Her admission came after one of Trump’s co-defendants sought to have Willis and her entire office disqualified from prosecuting the case because of the relationship.
McAfee allowed Willis to remain on the case if Wade resigned, which he did. Trump and several of his co-defendants appealed the decision.
The state appeals court is set to hear arguments in the disqualification bid in December, and it must rule by Mar. 14, 2025, which means that Trump will not face trial in this case before the November election.
Three lawyers and a bail bondsman involved in the post-election effort have pleaded guilty, and the four have agreed to cooperate in the cases against the other 15.
In August 2023, a Fulton County grand jury indicted Trump and 18 associates for election fraud, racketeering and other charges related to alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
The indictment said the defendants in the case “refused to accept that Trump lost, and they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.”
Former President Donald Trump declared Thursday that there will be “NO THIRD DEBATE” with Vice President Kamala Harris, half an hour after an internal campaign poll showed his Democratic opponent got no polling bounce in key states while Trump got a “2-point bump” from their verbal sparring match on ABC News earlier this week.
“When a prizefighter loses a fight, the first words out of his mouth are ‘I WANT A REMATCH,’” Trump, 78, posted on his Truth Social. “Polls clearly show that I won the Debate against Comrade Kamala Harris, the Democrats’ Radical Left Candidate, on Tuesday night, and she immediately called for a Second Debate.”
After being a “no-show” at a pre-planned Fox News debate that President Biden negotiated, Harris also “refused to do NBC & CBS” debates against him, Trump claimed.
“THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE!” he roared, referring to Biden’s June 27 debate debacle as the first and the ABC debate as the second.
“Two nights ago, Donald Trump and I had our first debate,” the VP posted on X in response an hour later. “We owe it to the voters to have another debate.”
“We’ve done two,” Trump insisted to The Post. “You know, one against Biden, one against Comrade Kamala. I did well. I did really well.”
“So we just don’t think that there’s any need for it,” he said. “The debate polls, every single poll, had us winning it.”
No public poll of debate watchers has indicated that Trump got the better of Harris, 59, Tuesday night. However, at least two surveys — including one commissioned by The Post — showed that the veep’s support remained flat from before the Philadelphia forum.
In addition, six of 10 undecided voters in a Reuters-organized focus group said following the debate that they favored the Republican nominee.
“KAMALA SHOULD FOCUS ON WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE DURING THE LAST ALMOST FOUR YEAR PERIOD,” Trump offered in his Truth Social post. “She and Crooked Joe have destroyed our Country, with millions of criminals and mentally deranged people pouring into the USA, totally unchecked and unvetted, and with Inflation bankrupting our Middle Class.”
“Everyone knows this, and all of the other problems caused by Kamala and Joe – It was discussed in great detail during the First Debate with Joe, and the Second Debate with Comrade Harris,” he said.
Trump campaign officials had lobbied for a Sept. 25 debate on NBC News, but Harris’ team never confirmed she would show for that.
The veep’s crew also turned down a Sept. 4 debate on Fox News, prompting Trump to hold a town hall event in battleground Pennsylvania with host Sean Hannity instead.
The 45th president unloaded in an appearance on “Fox & Friends” Wednesday morning about the “unfair” ABC moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis.
“It was three on one. … It was a rigged deal, as I assumed it would be, because when you looked at the fact that they were correcting everything and not correcting with her,” he said. “I thought I did a great job.”
Trump got the “2-point bump” in internal polling conducted after his debate with Harris, his campaign announced Thursday.
The survey of likely general election voters in seven swing states showed the two-point boost in both a hypothetical six-way race and head-to-head matchup between Trump, 78, and Harris, 59, a campaign memo from pollsters Tony Fabrizio and Travis Tunis shows.
Trump leads Harris, 49% to 46%, on a ballot that includes Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver and independent candidates Cornel West and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., each of whom received 1% or less support.
In a one-on-one race, the former president beats the current vice president, 50% to 47%.
Before their verbal sparring match, Trump and Harris were tied at 46% on the six-candidate ballot and at 48% on the two-candidate ballot.
Another 3% were undecided before and remained so after the debate.
“Clearly, target state voters were not impressed by Kamala Harris’ empty platitudes and while the media would have people believe she is cruising to victory, this couldn’t be farther from the truth,” the memo states.
The Trump campaign survey took place on Wednesday night and included opinions from 1,893 voters in the seven target states.
The earlier poll from last week involved 5,600 likely voters in the states. No margin of error was listed.
Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and Nevada remain the most hotly contested battleground states, though the Trump campaign memo did not specify which were the “target states.”
Though RFK Jr. dropped out and endorsed Trump last month, he remains on the ballot in Michigan and Wisconsin.
The Trump team saw the Kennedy scion’s endorsement as key to its strategy in winning several swing states, and pollsters previously predicted to The Post that it would “benefit” the former president’s campaign.
“Most of Kennedy’s left-leaning support had already dispersed to Harris,” said Dave Wasserman, a senior editor and elections analyst at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. “So this could represent a meaningful benefit for Trump.”
A Leger poll commissioned by The Post after the Trump-Harris debate on Tuesday found that the Democratic presidential candidate won the war of words, 50% to 29%, but gained no extra support.
By contrast, Trump jumped up a percentage point, putting him behind Harris, 50% to 47%.
Only 3% said they were not voting for either candidate.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday that the West letting Kyiv use longer-range weapons to strike Russian targets would mean NATO would be “at war” with Russia.
Putin spoke as US and UK top diplomats discussed easing rules on firing Western weapons into Russia, which Kyiv has been pressing for, more than two and a half years into Moscow’s offensive.
“This would in a significant way change the very nature of the conflict,” Putin told a state television reporter.
“It would mean that NATO countries, the US, European countries, are at war with Russia,” he added.
“If that’s the case, then taking into account the change of nature of the conflict, we will take the appropriate decisions based on the threats that we will face.”
Clearing Kyiv to strike deep into Russia “is a decision on whether NATO countries are directly involved in the military conflict or not”.
Putin’s comments came as Kyiv pressed the West to provide more powerful weapons with fewer restrictions, as Russia continues its advance into eastern Ukraine.
BREAKING:
🇷🇺 Putin on the potential use of NATO Long-range weapons against Russia:
"If they do that, NATO is officially at war with Russia "
"This would mean that NATO countries, the United States, and European nations are at war with Russia. And if that is the case,… pic.twitter.com/VqJ0h8JSYr
— Megatron (@Megatron_ron) September 12, 2024
Two top allies of former President Trump are warring on social media about a bigoted social media post mocking Vice President Harris’s Indian heritage, exposing fault lines within the Republican presidential candidate’s inner circle.
Right-wing activist Laura Loomer and Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R) have been engaged in a war of words on the social platform X, with Greene calling Loomer “appalling and extremely racist” for her recent comments.
Loomer quoted a Sunday post in which Harris was talking about her Indian heritage and said that if she wins the election, “the White House will smell like curry & White House speeches will be facilitated via a call center and the American people will only be able to convey their feedback through a customer satisfaction survey at the end of the call that nobody will understand.”
On Wednesday night, three days after Loomer’s post, Greene posted a response saying the comment “does not represent who we are as Republicans or MAGA. This does not represent President Trump. This type of behavior should not be tolerated ever.”
The two Trump allies have since been in an intense back-and-forth on X, with Loomer calling Greene a “raging antisemite” and defending her initial post as a “funny joke about Kamala Harris” using “her Indian mom as a way to dodge questions.”
Greene slammed Loomer’s comments in another post, adding that “when it comes to post that are flat out racist, hateful, and make President Trump look bad, she needs to be responsible and delete them.”
Loomer also repeatedly attacked Greene over her divorce. “Along with being an anti semite, MTG is also a poor excuse for a Christian,” Loomer wrote in one post.
This public feud played out as Loomer was spotted accompanying Trump as he commemorated the anniversary of 9/11 in New York and Pennsylvania on Wednesday.
Loomer, who previously called the 9/11 attacks an “inside job,” told The Associated Press that she doesn’t work for the Trump campaign and that she was “invited as a guest.” She did not respond to questions about her past statements about 9/11.
She was also spotted departing Trump’s plane when he landed in Philadelphia for Tuesday’s debate against Harris.
Loomer said that Greene’s attacks on X were motivated by jealousy. “Nobody talks about her anymore because she’s annoying and irrelevant and a sellout,” she wrote in one post.
Reached for comment, Greene’s office pointed to comments she made on the Capitol steps, saying she has “concerns about her rhetoric and her hateful tone.”
“Laura Loomer’s outright lies, instability, and manic toxicity have no place in MAGA,” Greene posted on X.
Loomer posted that she would not be replying to requests for comment on X. “To the many reporters who are calling me and obsessively asking me to talk to them today, the answer is no.”
The two women have a history of engaging in public spats after Greene publicly warned Trump against hiring Loomer last year, calling her “mentally unstable” and a “documented liar.”
The New York Times reported that Trump met with Loomer last year and directed advisers to give her a position supporting his candidacy, potentially with the campaign itself or with a super PAC aligned with the former president’s 2024 White House bid.
A Trump campaign official later confirmed to The Hill that Loomer was not being hired. She confirmed her employment status in a post Wednesday.
“I do not work for President Trump. I do not work for anyone, actually. I operate independently out of my love for my country and a love for the truth,” she wrote.
Former President Donald Trump announced a new economic proposal banning any taxes on overtime pay for people who work more than 40 hours per week during a Tuscon, Arizona, rally Thursday evening.
“I’m also announcing that as part of our additional tax cuts, we will end all taxes on overtime,” he said in his appearance in the battleground state. “That gives people more of an incentive to work.”
“The people who work overtime are among the hardest working citizens in our country, and for too long, no one in Washington has been looking out for them,” Trump continued.
“It’s time for the working man and woman to finally catch a break, and that’s what we’re doing because this is a good one. And I think it’s going to be great for the country.”
This latest proposal builds on his previous economic efforts to win the public over in his battle against Vice President Kamala Harris. He did not offer details on how he would garner congressional support for the legislation or how the plan would be implemented.
Before Thursday, the former president had endorsed ending taxes on tips and on Social Security benefits, an effort that appeals both to restaurant workers in crucial swing states such as Nevada, a state that has a sizable restaurant worker population, and to senior citizens, who are far more likely to vote than younger voters.
Trump has repeatedly blasted Harris for copying portions of his economic plan, particularly the banning of taxes on tips, which the vice president subsequently embraced.
During the Tuesday debate between the two candidates, Harris slammed Trump over his handling of the economy while in office.
Trump claimed that Harris and President Joe Biden’s leadership over the last three years has led to inflation and high grocery prices, hurting families.
His endorsement of no taxation on overtime is likely a bid to appeal to voters unhappy with how expensive everyday items have become and with their shrinking pay stubs since he left office.
“That’s why we will be saying that if you’re an overtime worker, when you’re past 40 hours a week —think of that — your overtime hours will be tax free,” Trump said to applause from the audience. “OK, good. You’re gonna have it.”
The former president and Harris faced off on the debate stage Tuesday evening, and both candidates held their first public rallies following the debate. Harris appeared in Charlotte and Greensboro, North Carolina, on Thursday afternoon and evening.
The governor of New York has basal cell carcinoma, a common type of skin cancer.
Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) announced her diagnosis to reporters Thursday following a public safety press conference in Manhattan.
Hochul told reporters her physician discovered the skin cancer during a routine checkup “a few weeks ago.”
“A tiny, tiny speck on my nose, you can’t even see it,” Hochul told reporters. In an “excess of precaution,” Hochul said she will have the tumor removed Friday morning.
Surgeries to remove basal cell carcinoma typically occur in office with the use of local anesthetic, meaning people who undergo the procedure can usually go home the same day.
“I’ll be out of commission for about an hour or two tomorrow morning,” Hochul said, adding that when she does return to work “there will be a bandage on my nose.”
Basal cell carcinoma is the most common form of skin cancer with about 3.6 million cases of the disease diagnosed each year, according to The Skin Cancer Foundation.
The disease is becoming more common, in part, due to better skin cancer detection, overall increased sun exposure and people living longer, according to the American Cancer Society.
People of all skin tones can develop basal cell carcinoma, but those with light skin that rarely tans, light eyes and red or blonde hair have the highest risk of developing the disease, according to the American Academy of Dermatology.
The cancer tends to grow slowly and while typically not life-threatening, if left untreated, it can “wrap around nerves and blood vessels” and spread to muscle and bone, according to the association’s website.
Some early signs of the cancer are a slowly growing, “non-healing spot that sometimes bleeds,” or a slightly raised area of irritated skin.
“I encourage everyone to make sure that they do get regular checkups and follow through,” Hochul said.
The Biden administration notifies the US Congress that it will provide Egypt with $1.3 billion in military aid, a State Department spokesperson says, the first time since 2020 Egypt will receive the total amount of US funding despite human rights conditions.
The announcement comes as Washington has relied heavily on Cairo — a longstanding US ally — to mediate so far unsuccessful talks between Israel and Hamas on a ceasefire deal to end the war in Gaza.
Of the $1.3 billion in US foreign military financing allocated to Egypt, $320 million is subject to conditions that have meant at least some of that sum has been withheld in recent years.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken tells Congres that he waived a certification requirement on $225 million related to Egypt’s human rights record this year citing “the US national security interest,” the spokesperson says by email.
“This decision is important to advancing regional peace and Egypt’s specific and ongoing contributions to US national security priorities, particularly to finalize a ceasefire agreement for Gaza, bring the hostages home, surge humanitarian assistance for Palestinians in need, and help bring an enduring end to the Israel-Hamas conflict,” the spokesperson says.
Blinken issued a similar same waiver on the human rights conditions last year but withheld a portion of the military aid over Egypt’s failure to make “clear and consistent progress” on the release of political prisoners.
This year, Blinken determined that Egypt had made sufficient efforts on political prisoners to release $95 million tied to progress on the issue, the spokesperson said.
Tech billionaire Jared Isaacman became the first-ever civilian to embark on a spacewalk early Thursday — after already traveling the farthest from Earth a human being has gone since the Apollo moon missions.
Footage of the daring stunt showed Isaacman, 41, popping out of SpaceX’s Crew Dragon capsule on a tether as he came face-to-face with the dark vacuum of space just before 7 a.m.
“Back at home we all have a lot of work to do, but from here, Earth sure looks like a perfect world,” Isaacman said soon after emerging from the spacecraft.
Cameras on board captured his silhouette, waist high at the hatch, with the Earth glittering below him in a half-shadow.
After about 15 minutes outside, Isaacman was replaced by SpaceX engineer Sarah Gillis to go through the same motions.
Their maneuvers were streamed live on SpaceX’s website for the duration of the two-hour spacewalk.
Prior to popping open the hatch and emerging, Isaacman and his three other crewmembers were spotted waiting inside as the capsule was completely depressurized.
During that time, they relied on their newly developed SpaceX spacewalking suits for oxygen, which was provided via an umbilical connection to Crew Dragon.
The crew were all connected to 12-foot tethers but didn’t completely unfurl them during the spacewalk.
After emerging, Isaacman — the billionaire CEO and founder of the credit card processing company Shift4 — could be seen keeping a hand or foot attached to the capsule’s hatch at all times as he flexed his arms and legs.
Jared Isaacman becomes the first person ever to perform a commercial spacewalk.
Congratulations SpaceX 🚀💫 pic.twitter.com/nyTlMX0oYa
— DogeDesigner (@cb_doge) September 12, 2024
Gillis, meanwhile, bobbed up and down as she twisted her arms and sent live reports back to Mission Control.
A longer, untethered spacewalk – which is common at the International Space Station – wasn’t possible because only NASA suits are currently equipped with jetpacks that can guide an astronaut back to safety.
Given the Crew Dragon doesn’t have a pressurized airlock, the crew needed to wear the new spacesuits to protect them from the vacuum conditions during the mission.
It comes after SpaceX had delayed the planned start of the spacewalk by a few hours early Thursday. No explanation was immediately given for the delay, but the company said via X that “all systems are looking good.”
Isaacman and Gillis were joined on the mission by fellow SpaceX engineer Anna Menon and former Air Force Thunderbirds pilot, Scott “Kidd” Poteet.
They began preparing for the endeavor soon after blasting into orbit on Tuesday for a five-day flight.
The spacewalk took place after Isaacman and the crew reached a distance of nearly 870 miles above the Earth — well beyond the International Space Station and surpassing the Earth-lapping record set during NASA’s Project Gemini in 1966.
Only the 24 Apollo mission astronauts who flew to the moon have ventured farther into space.
While the trip would normally be a once-in-a-lifetime experience, it is just the first of three trips Isaacman purchased from Elon Musk in 2022.
Isaacman, who has not publicly stated how much his SpaceX trips cost, was among the first group of tourists who flew to space in 2021.
They began preparing for the endeavor soon after blasting into orbit on Tuesday for a five-day flight.
During that trip, Isaacman set a record by being the first space tourist to circle the Earth without having a professional astronaut aboard.
A petition to recall the entire city commission for Springfield is being processed in response to the town’s leadership failing to address long-standing issues that have been made worse through the influx of Haitians in recent years.
Citing Section 59 of the city’s charter, the petition, obtained by Blaze Media, says it is seeking to recall “the entire membership” of the Springfield City Commission. Mayor Rob Rue, Assistant Mayor David Estrop, and Commissioners Krystal Brown, Bridget Houston, and Tracey Tackett are named on the draft document.
The petition accuses the city of not enforcing building codes and says the city has used money earmarked for hiring police officers for other purposes. It also calls for the removal of the city’s leadership because:
1.”The current members of the Commission have breached their public responsibilities.”
2.”The Commission has created an untenable housing crisis by purposefully abandoning prior practices for consistent code enforcement. The Commission has permitted unscrupulous landlords to proliferate unsafe tenements which have caused their occupants to live in substandard conditions, have created substantial occupational hazards for public safety officers who are dispatched to such tenements, and caused long term residents to be squeezed out of the local housing market.”
3.”The Commission has failed to maintain an adequate Police Department. Several years ago, the City voters imposed on themselves a special real estate tax levy to employ an additional 24 Police Officers. … Instead of employing the additional 24 Police Officers, the Commissioners have spent the restricted funds for purposes other than the intended Police Officer compensation …”
A committee to oversee the petition process is still being assembled. Once that is completed, the committee will officially notify the city commissioners, who are then given five days to file a 200-word written statement in their defense. After that, the gathering of signers of the petition will be allowed to proceed.
A recall election will take place if at least 15% of registered voters in the last regular municipal election sign the petition within the 30-day period.
The lack of housing for U.S. citizens in Springfield has been one of the most pressing issues since the arrival of 20,000 Haitians within the past few years.
“What they’ll do instead of having a single family in a home that’s maybe a three-bedroom, they’ll actually rent bedrooms out to individual families. So the landlord will technically triple his rent [income],” local Mark Sanders explained.
Blaze News made multiple calls to the Springfield city manager’s office, but many of those calls went unanswered. Blaze News attempted to leave a message for one individual, but the mailbox was full.
U.S. citizens who have been pushed out of their homes and have been able to afford to move out of Springfield have done so, but not everyone has had the means. A source shared the following photos of encampments that have sprung up around the town.
White House national security spokesman John Kirby trashed a group of veterans in an email sent in error to Fox News on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.
As Fox News reported on Wednesday, Kirby responded to an email query from Fox about criticisms by a veterans’ group about the Biden administration’s disastrous 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan by accidentally hitting “reply all” before disparaging the veterans.
Fox reported:
“Obviously no use in responding. A ‘handful’ of vets indeed and all of one stripe,” Kirby said in a “reply all” email chain Wednesday afternoon that appeared to be intended for White House staffers, but which also included Fox News Digital.
Fox News Digital had reached out to the White House earlier Wednesday afternoon regarding critical comments from four veterans, including Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., who blasted Kirby for his Monday press conference that they said provided “cover” for the Biden administration’s 2021 withdrawal.
…
Kirby’s message was sent in error, with him following up with a Fox News Digital reporter, “Clearly, I didn’t realize you were on the chain.” Kirby sent the email while traveling with President Biden on the anniversary of 9/11.
On Monday, Kirby pushed back against a House Republican report on the Afghanistan withdrawal by blaming former President Donald Trump for, among other things, negotiating with the Taliban — ignoring the fact that talks with the Taliban actually began under the Obama administration, via Qatar, in 2013, in Obama’s second term in office.
Kirby retired from the U.S. Navy as a Rear Admiral. He served as Pentagon spokesman during the Afghanistan pullout, including the murder of 13 U.S. service members in the ISIS-K terror attack at Abbey Gate in August 2021.
Following the presidential debate on Tuesday, social media users theorized that Vice President Kamala Harris wore audio earrings on stage.
The Germany-based company that sells the earrings said on Wednesday that the resemblance between Harris’ earrings and their audio earrings “is striking.”
On Tuesday night, Harris wore what appeared to be gold and pearl earrings while debating former President Donald Trump.
Social media users compared the earrings to NOVA H1 Audio Earrings, which are wireless earphones.
Media outlets and other social media users examined the earrings, coming to the conclusion that Harris’ earrings are from Tiffany & Co., not NOVA products.
“We do not know whether Mrs. Harris wore one of our products. The resemblance is striking and while our product was not specifically developed for the use at presidential debates, it is nonetheless suited for it,” Malte Iversen, managing director at Icebach Sound, told Just the News on Wednesday.
“To ensure a level playing field for both candidates, we are currently developing a male version and will soon be able to offer it to the Trump campaign. The choice of colour is a bit challenging though as orange does not go well with a lot of colours.
“Currently, we are unfortunately out of stock and also busy preparing a lawsuit against a big Chinese tech company breaching our patents,” Iversen continued.
“We are talking to investors in order to ramp up operations accordingly and are confident that we will ship again very soon.”
President Biden briefly put on a red Trump hat Wednesday during a visit to a fire station in Shanksville, Pa., where he was ruthlessly ridiculed by one of the former president’s supporters.
As the president mingled with first responders after marking the 23rd anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, it appears he offered to trade one of his hats for the Trump supporter’s cap, video posted by TikTok user shows.
“I’ll give you my presidential hat,” Biden told the man, noting the “presidential seal on it.”
The Trump supporter, an older gentleman wearing “Punisher” suspenders, insisted that Biden sign the hat to seal the deal, and the president agreed.
“Do you remember your name?” the Trump supporter quipped.
“I don’t remember my name,” the 81-year-old president responded. “I’m slow.”
“You’re an old fart,” the Trump backer said, forcing Biden to acknowledge, “I’m an old guy.”
“You’re an old fart, right?” the man continued, openly mocking the president.
“I know you would know about that,” Biden shot back at the balding man, who then claimed to be a “young timer.”
The bizarre back-and-forth didn’t end there.
🔥🚨BREAKING NEWS: Another video has dropped PROVING JOE BIDEN INTENTIONALLY PUT ON A TRUMP HAT has released. This is the craziest thing I have ever seen in my entire life. I can’t believe this is real life right now. WTF IS GOING ON!!!!!!????? pic.twitter.com/OqzU04F3Ml
— Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives (@dom_lucre) September 12, 2024
“He reminds me of the guys I grew up with,” Biden said as he finished signing the presidential hat. “There was always one in the neighborhood.”
When the president asked the supporter of the GOP nominee for his red Trump hat, the man asked, “You want my autograph?”
“Hell no,” Biden replied.
At the crowd’s urging, Biden proceeded to briefly place the “Trump 2024” hat over the hat already on his head.
“I’m proud of you now, you old fart,” the Trump supporter told Biden.
“Just remember, no eating dogs and cats,” the president said as he made his way away from the Trump backer, who strangely argued, “They’re good,” likening the taste of family pets to “Kentucky Fried Chicken.”
Footage of Biden, 81, donning the hat was quickly shared by the Trump-Vance campaign and the White House later confirmed that the president had tried on the headwear in the spirit of bipartisanship.
“At the Shanksville Fire Station, @POTUS spoke about the country’s bipartisan unity after 9/11 and said we needed to get back to that,” White House senior deputy press secretary Andrew Bates wrote on X.
“As a gesture, he gave a hat to a Trump supporter who then said that in the same spirit, POTUS should put on his Trump cap. He briefly wore it.”
Thanks for the support, Joe! pic.twitter.com/GeNDXWEHVi
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) September 11, 2024
Supporters of the Republican nominee were less magnanimous.
“Kamala did so bad in last night’s debate, Joe Biden just put on a Trump hat,” the Trump War Room account posted on X along with footage that appeared to be reversed to show Biden putting on the hat rather than removing it.
Earlier, Biden had brought beer and pizza to the firehouse after participating in a wreath-laying ceremony at the memorial to United Airlines Flight 93, which was taken down by Al Qaeda hijackers with 40 people on board on that tragic day more than two decades ago.
Passengers on the Boeing 757 had stormed the cockpit before the terrorists could crash the jet into its intended target, believed to be either the White House or the US Capitol building.
Shanksville is located in Somerset County, a heavily Republican area where more than 77% of voters backed Trump in the 2020 election.
Ironically, during Tuesday night’s debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump mused about sending the Democratic nominee one of his trademark red ‘Make America Great Again’ hats while needling her for poaching his ideas.
“Everything that she believed three years ago and four years ago is out the window. She’s going to my philosophy now,” Trump said.
“In fact, I was going to send her a ‘MAGA’ hat. She’s going to my philosophy.”
Biden, who dropped out of the 2024 race July 21, had long accused Trump of posing a threat to the foundation of the country.
“Too much of what’s happening in our country today is not normal,” the president said during remarks in September 2022. “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.”
-
Georgia Judge Drops 2 Charges Against Trump in Election Case
18 hours ago • 2 min read • Add Comment -
DOJ Releases 2023 Crime Statistics, Trump Campaign Fact Checks ABC
3 hours ago • < 1 min read • Add Comment -
Trump: No More Debates with Kamala Harris
18 hours ago • 4 min read • Add Comment -
MAGA Drama: MTG and Laura Loomer Trade Blows
18 hours ago • 2 min read • Add Comment