Trump’s comments about Russia and NATO spark controversy
Donald Trump made remarks on Saturday, Feb. 10, about NATO that criticized some members at a campaign rally in South Carolina. The former president has often described NATO as a flawed international partnership, accusing some countries of not pulling their financial weight in the alliance, and the U.S. having to overcompensate.
During his political rally, Trump said he told a NATO ally that if they didn’t pay, they’d be cut out. Therefore, that country would no longer be protected under a NATO policy that promises if a NATO country is attacked, then NATO as a whole will respond.
“One of the presidents of a big country, he stood up, said, ‘Well sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’” Trump told the crowd in South Carolina. “I said, ‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ Let’s say that happened, no, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay, you got to pay your bills.”
Left-leaning news outlets like CNN described Trump’s words as “incendiary remarks” that sent “very real shudders through Europe.”
“Favoring foes over friends, Trump threatens to upend international order” the New York Times wrote.
Politico’s headline read “‘Enough to make Reagan ill’: Trump’s NATO remarks under fire.”
Politico’s headline quotes former U.S. Congressman Adam Schiff, D. Schiff and many Democrats were critical of Trump’s comments. The White House even called it “appalling and unhinged.”
However, on the other side of the aisle, Republicans came to the former president’s defense.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., was asked about Trump’s comments on CNN on Feb. 11. Rubio said that Trump doesn’t “talk like a traditional politician” and that Trump “used leverage to get people to stand up to the plate.”
The former president’s comments were not well-received by NATO. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Trump undermined national and international security, putting American and European soldiers at risk.
During his campaign rally, Trump brought up NATO’s financial commitments in a comparison to countries giving aid to Ukraine. Trump argued that the U.S. should only provide foreign aid in the form of a loan while Congress currently weighs a foreign aid package.
NY officials propose restricting social media algorithms for kids
Gov. Kathy Hochul, D-N.Y., is throwing her support behind legislation that limits the power of social media algorithms for its youngest users. The proposed legislation would also require age verification for anyone under 18.
On Oct. 11, 2023, Hochul announced the state would pursue legislation that would limit the power of Big Tech algorithms and how they connect kids to content they’ve liked in the past. Lawmakers believe the law would protect kids from potentially harmful content.
“They’ll give more parents more tools to keep their kids safe, limit social media’s outreach, and also loosen the grip that these algorithms have on the way our kids think and act,” Hochul said.
According to The Wall Street Journal, the legislation is part of a “broader spending plan” by Hochul. The Journal also said that the proposal is likely to pass with state lawmakers required to take action by March 31.
The proposed law in New York is another critical juncture in the fight to rein in the powers of Big Tech. Forty-one attorneys general nationwide have filed lawsuits against Meta, and more cities and states are enacting laws to combat what critics contend are the harmful impacts of social media on the health of kids and teens.
The Wall Street Journal interviewed New York Attorney General Letitia James, D, who said that she believes the legislation, if passed, will survive a legal challenge. James said it will not falter under legal scrutiny like laws in Ohio and Arkansas, which ban social media for kids.
The laws banning social media for kids in Ohio and Arkansas are unable to be enforced because of legal challenges from NetChoice, a trade group that represents technology companies including Meta and TikTok. A district judge granted NetChoice a temporary injunction after it filed a lawsuit against all three states. Utah’s law doesn’t go into place until March 1, 2024.
The reason James believes the New York’s proposed law will be successful is because it differs in scope from the states that previously enacted age restrictions. Instead of targeting all of the content, New York’s law would target a “delivery mechanism.” The law would not regulate content broadly.
The state senator who sponsors the bill, Andrew Gounardes, D-N.Y., spoke with the Journal.
“If you want to follow the Taylor Swift fan page, that’s great,” said New York Sen. Andrew Gounardes, the bill’s sponsor.“What we don’t want is where you click on one thing and in 15 minutes be shown self-harm videos.”
New York is not the only state attempting to change laws regarding social media usage. The Wall Street Journal reported 140 bills in at least 30 states are on the books regarding media literacy, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In June, Politico reported that Connecticut required online platforms to perform children’s safety assessments. The assessments are designed to limit kids interactions with potentially dangerous people on social media.
Social media protections for kids have also been prominently featured in national politics recently. Congress members accused companies like Meta of hurting American youth through algorithms that target teens by enticing them with content.
“I know you don’t mean it to be so, but you have blood on your hands,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. said. “You have a product that’s killing people.”
However, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg argues that algorithms are taken out of context, telling The New York Times that his company uses them to identify and remove dangerous content.
Zuckerberg has also questioned the link between mental health issues in teens and social media usage. The Meta CEO said during testimony in front of U.S. senators that he did not see a “causal” link.
However, many lawmakers and activists contend that there is a link between social media and a rise in suicides, depression and mental health disorders among teens. In May, The New York Times reported that the U.S. surgeon general warned of the negative effects social media usage can have on anxiety and depression among kids.
Hochul is not the first public official in her state to take action on the reportedly harmful effects of social media use. In January, New York City Mayor Eric Adams, D, declared a public health emergency regarding social media usage among teens and kids. In response, New York City became the first major city in the U.S. to label social media an “environmental toxin.” Adams said he would reveal more details about his plan of action at a later date.
Calif. lawmakers debate youth football ban, Gov. Newsom says he won’t sign
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, D, has pledged not to sign a bill proposing a ban on tackle football for children under 12, as reported by Politico. The proposed legislation, introduced by California Assembly Member Kevin McCarty, D, seeks to gradually phase out youth tackle football by 2029, aiming to protect children from potential brain injuries and trauma.
McCarty, a Democrat from Sacramento, emphasized the importance of safeguarding young athletes, citing concerns about concussions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) linked to tackle football.
“I’ve been looking at this issue on concussions and CTE for a number of years,” McCarty told news reporters. “I just think we owe it to ourselves to protect kids in California. And year after year more, we know this youth tackle football doesn’t make sense for little kids’ brains.”
While California could have been the first state to implement such a ban, Newsom shared McCarty’s concerns about young athletes’ health but expressed reservations about an outright prohibition.
In a statement to Politico, Newsom said his administration would collaborate with the legislature and the bill’s author to enhance safety in youth football while ensuring parents retain the freedom to choose appropriate sports for their children.
“My administration will work with the legislature and the bill’s author to strengthen safety in youth football — while ensuring parents have the freedom to decide which sports are most appropriate for their children,” Newsom said.
Newsom previously enacted a law restricting full-contact practices for youth football teams to address brain injury concerns. This law limits full-contact practices to 30 minutes per day for two days a week and prohibits them during the offseason.
Pulane Lucas, a mother of a former NFL player diagnosed with CTE, stressed the damaging effects of repetitive head injuries on young children’s brains.
“Those repetitive head injuries are damaging to the brains of young children, and they don’t see it when they’re five, six, seven and eight,” Lucas said. “They’re thinking about the love of the game, which is it’s very exciting and thrilling.”
The concerns surrounding brain injuries in tackle football may be influencing a decline in participation, with California experiencing an 18% drop in high school football players from 2015 to 2022, according to a survey by the California Interscholastic Federation.
Eminem vs. Vivek: Cease-and-desist letter adds to history of musician-politician battles
The chorus from Eminem’s Oscar-winning song “Lose Yourself” sounds like this – Lose yourself in the music, the moment, you own it. The “you own it” line is quite topical this week. See, the thing is – if you’re a politician using a musician’s work at a campaign event, and if you don’t own it, that could cause confusion and possible legal ramifications.
The battle between musical artists and political leaders has been going on for decades. It’s a clash between lyricist and lawmaker — performer and pundit — rapper and representative — which brings regulations on copyright, trademark and image use to the forefront. Republican presidential candidate and political newcomer Vivek Ramaswamy is the latest to join the list of politicians to get a less-than-cordial response from the artist behind the music featured at their campaign events.
Ramaswamy is no stranger to singing himself — actually, rapping.
During his college years at Harvard University, he rapped under the stage name “Da Vek.” But, as he told The New York Times, he identifies with one rapper in particular — Eminem.
“I did not grow up in the circumstances he did,” Ramaswamy told the Times. “But the idea of being an underdog, people having low expectations of you, that part speaks to me.”
That was evident during an appearance at the Iowa State Fair on Aug. 12 when Ramaswamy took the microphone and began singing the lyrics Marshall Mathers made famous in the 2002 film “8 Mile.”
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds had asked him moments earlier what his favorite walkout song would be. Ramaswamy replied, “Lose Yourself.” After their chat ended, the song was played over the loudspeakers and the business mogul proceeded to put on an impromptu karaoke performance.
This was not a shock to anyone who knew of Ramaswamy’s history with the song. As Politico reports, during his time at Harvard, he would rap at open-mic nights, sometimes changing the lyrics to libertarian themes. He performed the rap during a vacation in Canada and at a holiday party for Strive, the asset management firm he founded.
“In Eminem, he found an insurgent-like figure, the kind of persona Ramaswamy aspired to and still seems to draw at least some inspiration from,” Politico reported.
The presidential hopeful even rapped a few lines of the song during his interview.
Source: AP Images
But it was the state fair performance that caught the attention of Eminem himself, and the 15-time Grammy Award winner was not amused. He sent Ramaswamy a cease-and-desist letter through the performing rights organization BMI.
The letter, which was first obtained by the Daily Mail, was dated Aug. 23, 11 days after the performance. It read, in part, that BMI “has received a communication from Marshall B. Mathers, III, professionally known as Eminem, objecting to the Vivek Ramaswamy campaign’s use of Eminem’s musical compositions…BMI will consider any performance of the Eminem Works by the Vivek 2024 campaign from this date forward to be a material breach of the Agreement for which BMI reserves all rights and remedies with respect thereto.”
Source: Daily Mall
“Will The REAL Slim Shady Please Stand Up? He didn’t just say what I think he did, did he,” Ramaswamy posted on X, referring to lyrics in Eminem’s 2000 song “The Real Slim Shady.”
A spokesperson for Ramaswamy’s campaign issued a statement saying, “To the American people’s chagrin, we will have to leave the rapping to the real Slim Shady.”
History of Politician vs. Musician Battles
Ramaswamy does not have to look too far to find other politicians who have suffered a similar fate when choosing a catchy tune for their events – though, most of the time, they were not performing it as he did.
In 1984, Ronald Reagan had planned to use Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the U.S.A.” as the theme for his reelection campaign. When an adviser for the president asked if they could use the song, the New Jersey singer said no.
That didn’t stop Reagan from referencing the rocker during a stump speech in the Garden State, saying “America’s future rests in the message of hope in the songs of a man so many young Americans admire — New Jersey’s own, Bruce Springsteen.”
In 1989, Bobby McFerrin asked George H.W. Bush’s team to stop playing his song “Don’t Worry, Be Happy” as the vice president vied for the highest office. The Bush campaign stopped using it and switched to Woody Guthrie’s “This Land is Your Land.”
Former President Donald Trump has received backlash from a few musicians whose work was used at his political events. In 2015, as Trump announced his run for the presidency, Neil Young’s “Rockin’ in the Free World” blared through Trump Tower.
Young’s representatives released a statement saying Trump was “not authorized” to use his song.
The future president’s team said that he did have permission through a licensing agreement with the performance rights organization ASCAP. Trump, however, stopped using the song, as his campaign manager at the time said they would respect Young’s wishes because “it’s the right thing to do.”
In 2020, The Rolling Stones enlisted BMI to keep its track “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” from playing at Trump rallies as he sought reelection.
“BMI (has) notified the Trump campaign on behalf of the Stones that the unauthorized use of their songs will constitute a breach of its licensing agreement. If Donald Trump disregards the exclusion and persists, then he would face a lawsuit for breaking the embargo and playing music that has not been licensed,” a statement from The Stones’ representatives said.
In 2008, Sam Moore of the R&B duo Sam & Dave requested Obama to stop playing “Hold On, I’m Coming” at his rallies, saying that it may look like he was endorsing the presidential candidate at the time.
“I have not agreed to endorse you for the highest office in our land…My vote is a very private matter between myself and the ballot box,” Moore said.
The Obama campaign agreed to stop using the song, but the following year Moore performed at the president’s inaugural ball.
Legalities of politicians using artist’s music
There are rules and regulations when it comes to a musician’s work being played at events, it’s just that these rules and regulations can sometimes be misinterpreted, misunderstood, ignored or applied differently depending on the circumstances.
Inductee Eminem performs on stage during the 37th Annual Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame Induction Ceremony at Microsoft Theater on November 05, 2022 in Los Angeles, California. Photo by Jeff Kravitz/FilmMagic). Source: Getty Images.
Leslie A. Farber is a New Jersey attorney whose areas of practice include business matters. Though she was not affiliated with any of these particular instances, she has written on the subject of whether politicians have the legal right to play any songs at their events. Her conclusion: “The answer is not clear cut.”
“Artists rarely have full control over where and when their music can be played. The writer (or writers) of a song automatically receives copyright for their original creation, and U.S. copyright statutes prohibit the dissemination of copyrighted work online without permission,” she wrote.
Copyright comes into play, for example, if a politician uses an artist’s song without permission in a social media video.
Farber said no permission is needed for a song to be played at a public venue like a stadium that has a public performance license, which is granted through organizations like BMI and ASCAP.
However, she pointed out, “ASCAP recommends that political campaigns seek permission from the musicians or songwriters, as these licenses exclude music played during conventions or campaign events.”
Jodie Thomas, BMI’s executive director of corporate communications, told Variety in 2020 that the Political Entities License was created to cover music used by political campaigns.
“Since many political events and rallies are often held at places that don’t typically require a music license, such as airport hangars or community fields, a Political Entities License ensures that wherever the campaign stops, it is in compliance with copyright law,” Thomas said. “A venue license was never intended to cover political campaigns. So if a campaign attempts to rely on a venue license to cover its music use, there’s risk involved.”
Thomas said political campaigns “cannot and should not try to circumvent BMI’s withdrawal of musical works under its Political Entities License by attempting to rely on another license.”
Farber said “savvy campaign managers” purchase the rights to play the music at political events through licensing agreements.
“If an artist’s song is part of the licensing agreement and is played at a campaign event, they have traditionally had little legal recourse outside of sending a cease-and-desist letter,” Farber said.
This is approach is seen in Eminem’s cease-and-desist letter to the Ramaswamy campaign.
BMI says the letter served as notice that Eminem’s songs are excluded from the Music License for Political Entities or Organizations between its organization and the Vivek 2024 team effective immediately. According to the letter, the licensing agreement between the two parties was entered on May 24, almost three months before the “Lose Yourself” viral moment.
According to Farber, other avenues artists can take to keep politicians’ hands off their songs are objecting on the basis of their Right of Publicity, “a legal argument that covers how their image is portrayed,” and the Lanham Act, which covers trademark infringement.
Farber said infringement can occur if the use of the song could confuse the audience into thinking the musician is endorsing the candidate, which is an argument many artists have used to stop their music from being played.
In July 2020, Gospel singer and songwriter Yolanda Adams testified before the Senate’s subcommittee on intellectual property about musicians’ work being used by political campaigns.
The four-time Grammy winner said, “I am not a copyright attorney. But after decades of watching debates about music in campaigns, I can offer a songwriter’s advice in lieu of legal advice. Musicians run the spectrum of political views. If candidates want to use music in their campaigns, work with us – the artists and songwriters – to find the right match. I am often asked for the use of my music for all kinds of uses: services, weddings, alas, even funerals. And I almost always give my permission.
“But the operative word is permission. Legal battles and cease and desist letters will never be as effective as good old-fashioned cooperation.”
Polls show indictments are hurting Trump’s standing in general election
Could former President Donald Trump’s indictments be hurting his prospects in the 2024 general election? Polls indicate they may be.
It’s clear former President Trump is dominating the Republican primary. A recent CBS News poll found he is supported by 62% of likely GOP primary voters, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was a distant second at 16%. The Real Clear Politics average of polls shows Trump gained support around the time of his first indictment over hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels.
“Any time they file an indictment, we go way up in the polls. We need one more indictment to close out this election,” Trump told supporters at an Alabama fundraiser Aug. 4.
But those surveys focus on Republican primary voters, or likely Republican primary voters. Polls that use a broader representative sample show the indictments are hurting Trump’s chances with Americans as a whole.
A new Politico Magazine/Ipsos poll that surveyed Republicans, Democrats and Independents found that more than half the country (51%) thinks Trump is guilty of the alleged crimes in the federal 2020 election subversion case.
According to Politico, 61% said the trial should take place before the 2024 general election. 44% of respondents said the outcome would have no impact on their likelihood of supporting Trump. But for those who said the result would inform their vote, 32% said a conviction would make them less likely to support Trump — including 34% of independents.
An AP-NORC poll also found support for Trump is much weaker with the general electorate. According to the poll, which was conducted in mid-August, 74% of Republicans said they would support Trump in the general election, but 53% of Americans said they would definitely not support him if he’s the Republican nominee and 11% said they would probably not support him.
Some of Trump’s primary opponents are using the indictments and his actions surrounding the 2020 election to make the case against nominating him.
“Whether or not you believe that the criminal charges are right or wrong, the conduct is beneath the office of President of the United States,” former Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) said at the Milwaukee debate.
We will start to get concrete answers about Trump’s standing with primary voters Jan. 15, 2024 during the Iowa Caucuses.
Clapper, Politico battle over Hunter Biden disinformation story
Politico and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper are at odds over a two-year-old report that dozens of intelligence officials believed the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation. The article, published in October 2020, cited a letter signed by more than 50 former senior intelligence officials.
“The arrival on the U.S. political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation,” the letter read. It’s important to note the phrase “information operation,” which is not the same thing as disinformation in the national security community.
Despite the difference between the two terms, Clapper believed the Hunter Biden emails were disinformation, which Politico went on to report. Two years later, Clapper has called out Politico for its reporting.
“All we were doing was raising a yellow flag that this could be Russian disinformation,” Clapper said in an interview with the Washington Post. “Politico deliberately distorted what we said.”
“The headline is a fair summary of their allegations, the subhead offers additional context, and the first paragraph of the article hyperlinks to the letter itself, allowing readers to draw their own conclusion,” Politico said in a statement.
Threats of legal action against Politico over its reporting will likely go nowhere. Neither Clapper nor any of the other former intelligence officials who signed onto the letter are likely to testify under oath.
Supreme Court report: ‘Unable to identify’ Dobbs opinion leaker
“The team has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence,” the court said in Thursday’s report. “The Marshal reports that ‘investigators continue to review and process some electronic data that has been collected and a few other inquiries remain pending.’”
According to the report, investigators “conducted 126 formal interviews of 97 employees, all of whom denied disclosing the opinion” in sworn statements. However, some employees had to amend their written statements after they “admitted to telling their spouses about the draft opinion or vote count.”
Investigators looked closely at connections between Supreme Court employees and reporters, but found nothing to substantiate rampant speculation on social media about the identity of the Roe leaker. The court said it could not rule out that the opinion was inadvertently disclosed “by being left in a public space either inside or outside the building.”
“Assuming, however, that the opinion was intentionally provided to Politico by a court employee, that individual was evidently able to act without being detected by any of the court’s IT systems,” the report said. “While investigators and the court’s IT experts cannot absolutely rule out a hack, the evidence to date reveals no suggestion of improper outside access.”
The report concluded with “recommendations for restricting and managing access to court-sensitive materials, improving training, and improving IT capabilities” in order to prevent another leak from happening in the future. Among the report’s critiques:
Too many personnel have access to certain court-sensitive documents.
There is no universal written policy or guidance on the mechanics of handling and safeguarding draft opinions and court-sensitive documents.
The court’s current method of destroying court-sensitive documents has vulnerabilities that should be addressed.
The court’s information security policies are outdated and need to be clarified and updated.
There are inadequate safeguards in place to track the printing and copying of sensitive documents.
