In an election year where voters are transferring loyalties and an independent presidential candidate has attracted historic levels of support, Hispanic Americans are adding fuel to the fire in Nevada. The Latino community’s growing concern about the economy could spell trouble for President Joe Biden, but its political independence means they’re not in Republicans’ pocket either. Whoever they support, Nevada’s Hispanics will play a critical role in deciding who the country’s next president is this November. 

The GOP has made substantial inroads in gaining Hispanic support since former president Barack Obama won the voting bloc by overwhelming margins in 2012. In the battle between the Democratic president and Republican Mitt Romney, the GOP nominee took only 27% of the Hispanic vote. Just two presidential cycles later, Latino support for Republicans expanded by more than 10% nationwide, In 2020, former President Donald Trump claimed 38% of the nation’s Latino vote. 

Peter Guzman, the President of the Latin Chamber of Commerce in Nevada, told the Washington Examiner he is seeing a political shift in Nevada’s Latino community. The leader of the most powerful Hispanic chamber in Nevada, boasting 2,000 Latino members, Guzman says he’s watching a movement “away from the Democrat Party.” 

While data surrounding the margin of GOP expansion is mixed, it is undeniable that Republicans are making inroads in the Silver State. After the 2016 election, a national exit poll conducted by Edison Research showed Trump captured 29% of the Latino vote in Nevada, a significant increase from Romney’s 24% in 2012. An analysis by the Nevada Independent showed wildly different results than the Edison survey. The newspaper claims that while Democratic presidential nominee Hilary Clinton did receive fewer Latino votes than the previous election cycle, Trump still only garnered 10% of the vote to Clinton’s 88%. 

Going by Edison’s data, Trump’s slice of Nevada’s Latino vote expanded at least 6% in 2020, with exit polls showing him at 35%. If 2016 was closer to the Nevada Independent’s claims, the GOP nominee expanded his lead by 25%. 

Michael Flores is a longtime Nevada government affairs and community outreach professional who serves as the vice president of Government and Community Engagement for the University of Nevada. Flores says the changes in his Hispanic community are real. “There is a shift, and I don’t think that’s just in the polls,” he told the Washington Examiner. 

 “Voters are doing a lot smarter,” Flores said, “We can’t just assume that a certain age group or certain demographics going to vote a certain way. I think every vote has to be earned.”

With Trump’s well-documented and oft-inflammatory rhetoric on illegal immigration, the former president’s inroads into the Latino community continue to surprise political pundits. A comment from Flores might explain Latinos’ lack of concern: “He’s not talking about me.” Flores says that’s what he hears from his Hispanic community when Trump’s immigration comments come up. Like Guzman, he reiterated that other issues, “like the economy” seem to be more important to Latinos he’s surrounded by in Nevada than the former president’s controversial comments. 

Both Guzman and Flores told the Washington Examiner the economy is the top issue for voters this election cycle, which would explain a pivot away from President Joe Biden. “At the end of the day, I believe people always think about what’s happening with their wallet,” Guzman said, calling the economy “the number one issue” for Latino voters.

Guzman said the Biden administration seems to be missing a golden opportunity to capture the Latino vote. The Hispanic leader lamented that Nevada Latinos aren’t hearing about the issues that matter most to them – the economy, and immigration. “I think all we really hear about is abortion,” Guzman said. 

In 2024, 38% of Nevada’s Latino voters cited combined concerns about inflation, the cost of living, jobs, and the economy as their top issues this election. That number is up from 33% in 2016, and down from a record high of 51% in 2020 during the pandemic. Polls show Trump enjoys wide support from Latino voters on economic issues, with 42% support to Biden’s 20%. Only 12% of Nevadan Hispanic voters chose immigration and the border as their top priority in 2024, down from 21% in 2020.

While the economy has overtaken immigration as the top issue for Hispanics, that’s not to say they aren’t frustrated with immigration policy. Nationwide, Trump holds a 7% lead over Biden with Latino support for immigration policy, but Flores and Guzman warned that Nevada Latinos are upset with both parties for failing to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

“There’s a lot of frustration,” Flores says about “the lack of action by Congress. And this is both sides, not just Democrats, but Republicans too. Because when Republicans propose something Democrats, when Democrats propose something, Republicans don’t like it.” 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

At the end of the day, “Hispanics are looking at policies over personalities,” Guzman, who is a second-generation immigrant after his father fled Cuba 50 years ago, said.

Flores said that the traditionally Democratic voting bloc’s shift isn’t about “running to the Republican Party,” but embracing a more independent outlook on politics. 

Millions of beneficiaries can expect to see their July Supplemental Security Income payment, worth up to $943, on July 1. 

The payments are given to those living with a serious debilitating disability that negatively affects their income, according to the Social Security Administration.

The maximum amount received depends on how one applies, with varying amounts being given to individual filers, joint filers, and essential persons who provide SSI recipients with needed care.

Those filing individually can receive a maximum of $943 per month, couples filing jointly can receive up to $1,415, and essential persons receive up to $472. These amounts have increased by 3.2% since last year due to inflation.

To be eligible, filers need to be at least partially blind or have a “physical or mental condition(s) that seriously limits their daily activities for a period of 12 months or more, or may be expected to result in death.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

SSI payments are separate from regular Social Security benefits. Those who receive Social Security payments don’t automatically qualify for SSI payments.

Recipients can use a calculator from the SSA to figure out their payment total.

The United Kingdom is holding elections for every seat in the House of Commons this week, with a major shift expected in British politics.

As the U.K. holds its first parliamentary election in nearly five years, here is what to know about the pivotal race that will determine the immediate future of one of the United States‘s closest allies.

When is the election?

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, a member of the Conservative Party, announced on May 22 that elections would be held on July 4 — the same day in 1776 that the U.S. declared independence from the U.K.

The last parliamentary election took place on Dec. 12, 2019, and the Electoral Commission had specified that an election was required to happen by Jan. 28, 2025 — 25 working days after the fifth anniversary of the current government’s first meeting.

What is at stake?

The election is the first since the U.K. left the European Union in early 2020 and since the coronavirus pandemic. Conservatives boosted their majority in the last election, which was done as a snap election after a lack of progress on a withdrawal agreement from the EU.

Dogged by low approval ratings, Conservatives pushed this election to nearly as late as was legally allowed, in a departure from the past several elections.

The winning party in the July election could be leading the U.K. for up to the next five years. Currently, the Conservatives hold 344 seats in the 650 seat chamber, with the Labour Party having the second-largest presence with 205 seats.

Who is expected to win?

The Labour Party, which has not been in the majority since 2010, is heavily favored to win a commanding majority in the election.

A forecast from the Economist released the week before the election predicts that Labour will get 429 seats, followed by the Conservatives with 117 seats, the Liberal Democrats getting 42 seats, and the Scottish National Party winning 23 seats.

The outlet also predicts that there is a 98% chance of Labour winning a majority – 326 seats – and a 2% chance of Labour being the largest party but not a majority, with less than a 1% chance of either the Conservatives holding onto the majority or being the largest party.

A victory by the Labour Party would likely see Keir Starmer become prime minister, and mark a leftward shift in the U.K.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

When is the next election?

The next election will be sometime before August 2029, but unlike in the U.S., there is no set date for the election. The U.K. election is scheduled for July 4.

Multiple current and former leaders believe the United States needs to target Iran to stop the Houthi attacks targeting commercial vessels sailing in the previously highly trafficked waterways off Yemen’s coasts.

These attacks began on Nov. 19, 2023, and the Houthis have said they’re doing so in solidarity with Palestinians affected by the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, and they have attacked or threatened U.S. Navy and commercial vessels 190 times from then until June 13, according to a U.S. defense official.

U.S. officials have long accused Iran of supplying the Houthis with weapons as one of Tehran’s proxy forces in the region. With the Houthi attacks ongoing and showing no sign of abating, former defense officials argue the department needs to focus on Iran to stop the Houthi attacks.

“We haven’t effectively put the pressure on Iran to stop this behavior, whether that means ratcheting up the pressure on them. I’m not necessarily suggesting we should be going downtown Tehran bombing, but there are some things we have to do to create pressure on them,” retired Gen. Joseph Votel told the Washington Examiner.

The U.S. has carried out several iterations of strikes targeting Houthi launchers and depots, though it has not been enough to either destroy the Houthis arsenal or deter them from continuing the attacks.

“Unfortunately, this has not gone deep enough,” the former U.S. Central Command commander added. “And what I mean by going deep enough is we haven’t really taken the steps to really cut off the supply that is coming from Iran, and maybe perhaps some other Iranian line groups here may be supporting this that have allowed them to be resourced over a long period of time.”

The Houthis have targeted more than 60 vessels in their campaign, which have killed a total of four sailors, and they have seized a ship and sank two others.

Similarly, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told the Washington Examiner, “At some point we have to deal with the source, and that’s Iran.”

At least 29 major energy and shipping companies have altered their routes to avoid the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, and as of mid-February, container shipping through the Red Sea had declined by approximately 90% since December 2023. They have their vessels sail around the southern tip of Africa instead of navigating through the Red Sea between Africa and the Middle East. The new route is about 11,000 nautical miles longer and adds one to two weeks of transit time and approximately $1 million in fuel costs for each voyage.

Shipping companies have had to reevaluate whether it should have vessels sail through the Red Sea given the threat from the Houthis. Prior to this ongoing situation, about 10-15% of international maritime trade travels through the body of water.

“The bigger issue, ultimately, goes back to Iran. It’s Iran that’s sustaining and supporting these groups. And we believe that certainly Iran is sustaining the Houthis with weapons, but we also believe that Iran is helping them with targeting and other things,” former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper told the Washington Examiner.

He also raised the issue of the resources being used by the U.S. military to thwart these attacks.

“This conflict has been going on for some time,” he said. “So, I have a bigger concern about the ability of our defense industrial base to produce the munitions we need for other fights in other places.”

“Well, the challenge is you can shoot a missile like an SM-3 and within a matter of seconds and minutes, it knocks down a target and completes its mission. But it takes well over 12 months or so to replace that missile, and if we get into a bigger conflict with a different adversary somewhere else, say in the Indo-Pacific, then those are fewer missiles that we have in our inventory. And that’s my concern,” he said.

Iran’s network of proxies have all acted against U.S. or Israeli interests since Hamas’s Oct. 7 terrorist attack in Israel that has proved to be a catalyst for instability in the region. Hamas, which is based in Gaza, gets Iranian support, as does Hezbollah, a more sophisticated terror group based in Lebanon that is engaged in a limited conflict with Israel.

The ongoing exchange of rocket and missile fire over their shared border in Israel’s north and Lebanon’s south has forced the evacuation of tens of thousands of civilians on both sides.

McCaul, who met with Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant this week, said Gallant described Iran as “the octopus and the tentacles, are the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hamas,” and the lawmaker added, “They’re getting very provocative and then even with our own military ships in the region, [the Houthis are] slowing down commercial activity in the Red Sea.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The possibility for a widened conflict between Israel and Hezbollah appears more likely than at any other point during the war given escalating rhetoric from the leaders of both. A major conflict between the two of them would be highly destructive and would likely include heavy casualties on both sides.

“The question is, what does Iran do, particularly if the fate of Hezbollah is threatened,” Esper said.

Maybe you’ve heard that our national debt has topped $34.7 trillion. But what does that really mean for you and your family? The number is… Read More

The post When Washington Spends, You’re on the Hook. You Deserve to Know For How Much. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule Monday on Donald Trump‘s claim that he is immune from criminal prosecution surrounding his four-count indictment on an alleged attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

The strongest possibility that legal experts have suggested is that the case will be returned to a lower court, where a judge will wrestle over the facts of the case to determine which actions may be considered “public” conduct that is shielded by presidential immunity, and which acts constituted “private” conduct that may not be covered by immunity.

The case centers on whether Trump can challenge special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment for allegedly trying to subvert the 2020 election. Trump argues that former presidents should have full immunity for actions taken while in office and that a conviction should first require an impeachment, though the justices did not sound poised to grant full immunity based on their oral arguments in late April.

Lower Court Decisions and Supreme Court Deliberations

Two lower courts have ruled against Trump’s claim of broad immunity, which began with a ruling against Trump by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who is assigned to his cause.

However, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, two conservative justices who often vote together in consequential cases, suggested during April oral arguments that the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit may have erred in its approach.

At one point in the hearing, Kavanaugh pushed back on the special counsel’s position that there is no mention in the Constitution of immunity for former presidents.

“It’s not explicit in the Constitution, but also executive privilege is not explicit in the Constitution,” Kavanaugh said, referencing an established idea that presidents may withhold documents and information from the other branches of government.

Justice Elena Kagan pushed Trump’s attorney on just how far presidential immunity could extend, raising a hypothetical scenario of a military coup by a former president.

“How about if a president orders the military to stage a coup?” Kagan asked.

Former President Richard Nixon was a key historical figure that was leaned upon in the hearing. Trump in part rests his arguments on a 1982 Supreme Court decision that found former presidents are entitled to immunity from civil litigation for actions taken in office. Trump contends the same protection should apply to a former president for criminal charges as well, because the same concerns cited in the Nixon decision pertaining to “functioning of government” should apply.

Potential Outcomes

• Partial Immunity/ Sending the Case Back To Trial Judge

The Supreme Court might instruct lower courts to determine whether Trump’s actions on January 6 were official or private before deciding on immunity. This could delay the trial, which Trump has aimed to push beyond the 2024 election.

• No Immunity

The justices could conversely rule that Trump does not have any immunity from prosecution, allowing the trial to proceed as planned. This would align with lower court rulings that former presidents can face criminal charges for actions taken in office.

Timing and Implications

The Supreme Court’s decision to delay the ruling until July 1 has provided Trump with a temporary reprieve from seeing the case get to trial ahead of the 2024 presidential election. If the court sends the case back, it could delay the trial past the November 2024 election, aligning with Trump’s strategy. However, if the court rules against him, the trial could proceed swiftly, impacting the election.

Depending on the complexity of a potential public vs. private conduct test set by the court, Chutkan could get the case back on schedule ahead of the Nov. 5 election. However, legal experts have warned that the possible ambiguities of this test could result in another appeal by Trump or the prosecution if they contest the judge’s interpretations.

Broader Context

Trump pleaded not guilty in August to a four-count indictment related to election subversion. 

Meanwhile, a high court decision in Fischer v. United States could affect whether Trump can still legally face two of the four charges pertaining to obstruction allegations.

Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the law should not be interpreted broadly but instead dependent on language in the overarching statute, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which passed in 2002 after the Enron scandal. The act specified that obstruction meant destroying or manipulating documents that were part of an official proceeding.

Legal analysts at Just Security conceded that Friday’s decision dealt a “soft blow” to the government. They said, however, that “very few [Jan. 6] cases are likely to be materially affected” and that Trump’s case would be “materially unaffected.”

“The upshot is that the decision means little in terms of the pending charges against former President Donald Trump,” the analysts wrote, adding that the allegation Trump created “false evidence” in the election could be enough to satisfy the Supreme Court’s scope of the obstruction charge.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Special counsel Jack Smith has said as much in court papers, a sign that Smith would argue he correctly applied the obstruction charges if Trump were to challenge them.

Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.