- Ivanka Trump posted a picture of herself on Tuesday with a can of Goya beans and the caption, “If it’s Goya, it has to be good,” prompting accusations that she violated a federal ethics law.
- The law in question states that federal employees cannot “endorse any product, service or enterprise; or to give the appearance of governmental sanction.”
- The post comes after the CEO of Goya praised President Trump while speaking at a White House event, leading to calls for a boycott of the company.
- To counter the boycott, prominent conservatives have voiced their support for Goya and have urged others to buy its products.
Ivanka Trump’s Goya Tweet
After posting a picture of herself holding up a can of Goya beans on Tuesday night, Ivanka Trump is being accused of violating an ethics law that prohibits federal employees from endorsing companies and products.
“If it’s Goya, it has to be good,” the president’s daughter and advisor wrote in both Spanish and English.
Ms. Trump’s post comes as Goya, which bills itself as the biggest Hispanic-owned food company in the U.S., has become embroiled in controversy in recent days.
On Thursday, Goya CEO Robert Unanue appeared alongside President Donald Trump at the White House for the signing of an executive order that created an advisory panel aimed at boosting economic and educational opportunities for Hispanic Americans.
In a speech, Unanue praised the president and compared him to his grandfather who started Goya after immigrating from Spain.
“We’re all truly blessed at the same time to have a leader like President Trump, who is a builder. And that’s what my grandfather did,” he said. “He came to this country to build, to grow, to prosper.”
Unanue’s remarks sparked significant backlash from those angry that the CEO of a company with such a large Latinx base would support an anti-immigrant president. Many called for boycotts of the company prompting #BoycottGoya and #Goyaway to trend on Twitter.
In response, a number of prominent conservative voices called on people to counter the boycott by buying more Goya products, and Unanue doubled down, refusing to apologize and calling the boycott an attempt at “suppression of speech.”
Potential Ethics Violation
Ms. Trump’s post renewed some of the same criticism and controversy surrounding Goya’s ties to the Trump family.
“If it’s Trump, it has to be corrupt,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) tweeted in Spanish.
Some, like model and TV personality Chrissy Teigen, took more direct shots at Ms. Trump and questioned the legality of her post.
“Had it with anyone who EVER defends this woman or puts her as the ‘sane’ one in this family,” Teigen wrote. “what a repulsive trolling of the people. also (in the SEA of illegal shit this family does) is this even ethically ok or legal??”
Many others also raised up the possibility of an ethics violation, alleging that Ms. Trump, in her capacity as a federal employee, had violated a federal ethics law that explicitly says federal employees cannot “endorse any product, service or enterprise; or to give the appearance of governmental sanction.”
Among those arguing that she violated that law was Walter Shaub, the former head of the Office of Government Ethics. In a series of tweets, Shaub explained that the office looks at a number of contributing factors when deciding if an ethics violation has occurred, and outlined multiple reasons that Ms. Trump’s post breaks the law.
The first reason he provided was the fact that the president’s daughter has her official title in her Twitter bio and uses her Twitter account to “tout official activities of the administration,”
“If you use that social media account to tout a company’s product a few days after the company’s CEO publicly praised your father-president from the White House rose garden, that’s one more factor weighing against you — and a particularly strong one at that,” he added.
Shaub also argued that promoting Goya after it received backlash because of the CEO’s remarks about President Trump created the appearance of an official sanction, and the fact that Ms. Trump is a top advisor in the president’s inner circle makes it so “there’s a strong appearance that you’re endorsing a product in your official capacity.”
“For this reason, Ms. Trump’s Goya tweet is clearly a violation of the government’s misuse of position regulation,” he continued. “Ms. Trump has had ethics training. She knows better. But she did it anyway because no one in this administration cares about government ethics.”
Currently, it remains unclear what repercussions Ms. Trump will face, if any at all. While some experts have said her actions could amount a fireable offense in another administration, most speculate that very little will be done to hold her accountable, citing past precedent.
In 2017, top Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway was investigated after she told Fox News viewers to “go buy Ivanka’s stuff” in reference to Ms. Trump’s clothing and jewelry line. Conway was eventually cleared of any wrongdoing after White House lawyer determined she spoke “inadvertently” and “without nefarious motive.”
In a statement to the media Wednesday morning, a White House spokesperson defended Ms. Trump’s actions, seemingly to add credence to the claims that little will be done
“Only the media and the cancel culture movement would criticize Ivanka for showing her personal support for a company that has been unfairly mocked, boycotted and ridiculed for supporting this administration — one that has consistently fought for and delivered for the Hispanic community,” the spokesperson said.
“Ivanka is proud of this strong, Hispanic-owned business with deep roots in the U.S. and has every right to express her personal support.”
Separately, President Trump himself also continued to tout Goya and express his support for the brand on Twitter Wednesday.
“@GoyaFoods is doing GREAT,” he wrote. “The Radical Left smear machine backfired, people are buying like crazy!”
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (Forbes) (CNN)
Mississippi Asks Supreme Court To Overturn Roe v. Wade
The Supreme Court’s decision to consider Mississippi’s restrictive abortion ban already has sweeping implications for the precedents set under the landmark reproductive rights ruling, but now the state is asking the high court to go even further.
Mississippi’s Abortion Case
Mississippi filed a brief Thursday asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade when it hears the state’s 15-week abortion ban this fall.
After months of deliberation, the high court agreed in May to hear what will be the first abortion case the 6-to-3 conservative majority will decide.
Both a district judge and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit had ruled that Mississippi could not enforce the 2018 law that banned nearly all abortions at 15 weeks with exceptions for only “severe fetal abnormality,” but not rape and incest.
If the Supreme Court upholds the Mississippi law, it would undo decades of precedent set under Roe in 1973 and upheld under Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, where the court respectively ruled and reaffirmed that states could not ban abortion before the fetus is “viable” and can live outside the womb, which is generally around 24 to 28 weeks.
When the justices decided to hear the case, they said they would specifically examine the question of whether “all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”
Depending on the scope of their decision on the Mississippi law, the court’s ruling could allow other states to pass much more restrictive abortion bans without the risk of lower courts striking down those laws.
As a result, legal experts have said the case will represent the most significant ruling on reproductive rights since Casey nearly three decades ago, and the Thursday brief raises the stakes even more.
When Mississippi asked the justices to take up its case last June, the state’s attorney general, Lynn Fitch (R), explicitly stated that the petition’s questions “do not require the Court to overturn Roe or Casey.”
But that was before the court’s conservatives solidified their supermajority with the appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett — who personally opposes abortion — following the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
New Filing Takes Aim at Roe
With the new filing, it appears that Fitch views the high court’s altered makeup as an opportunity to undermine the constitutional framework that has been in place for the better part of the last century.
“The Constitution’s text says nothing about abortion,” Fitch wrote in the brief, arguing that American society has changed so much that the previous rulings need to be reheard.
“Today, adoption is accessible and on a wide scale women attain both professional success and a rich family life, contraceptives are more available and effective, and scientific advances show that an unborn child has taken on the human form and features months before viability,” she added, claiming the power should be left to state lawmakers.
“Roe and Casey shackle states to a view of the facts that is decades out of date,” she continued. “The national fever on abortion can break only when this Court returns abortion policy to the states.”
The Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents Mississippi’s sole abortion provider in the suit against the state’s law, painted Fitch’s effort as one that will have a chilling effect on abortion rights nationwide.
“Mississippi has stunningly asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe and every other abortion rights decision in the last five decades,” Nancy Northup, the president and CEO of the group said in a statement Thursday. “Today’s brief reveals the extreme and regressive strategy, not just of this law, but of the avalanche of abortion bans and restrictions that are being passed across the country.”
The Supreme Court has not yet said exactly when during its fall term it will hear oral arguments on the Mississippi case, but a decision is expected to come down by next June or July, as is standard.
An anticipated ruling just months before the 2022 midterms will almost certainly position abortion as a top issue at the ballot box.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (The Washington Post) (Politico)
Republicans Boycott Jan. 6 Committee After Pelosi Rejects Two of McCarthy’s Picks
The House Minority Leader said that unless House Speaker Pelosi reinstated the two members, Republicans will launch their own investigation into the insurrection.
Pelosi Vetoes Republicans
Republicans are boycotting the select committee to investigate the insurrection after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) rejected two of the five GOP members Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Ca.) picked to serve on the panel Wednesday.
In a statement, Pelosi cited the “statements and actions” of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Oh.) and Jim Banks (R-In.), whose nominations she said she was opposing “with respect for the integrity of the investigation.”
Jordan and Banks — both staunch allies of former President Donald Trump — have helped propagate the previous leader’s false election claims, opposed efforts to investigate the insurrection, and voted not to certify the election for President Joe Biden.
A senior Democratic aide also specifically told The Washington Post that Democrats did not want Jordan on the panel because he reportedly helped Trump strategized how to overturn the election and due to the fact he spoke to the then-president on Jan. 6, meaning there is a possibility he could be called to testify before the very same committee.
The aide also said that Democrats opposed Banks’ selection because of a statement he issued after McCarthy chose him.
In the statement, the representative compared the insurrection to the racial justice protests last summer, implied that the rioters were just normal American’s expressing their political views, and claimed the committee was a political ploy “to justify the Left’s authoritarian agenda.”
Notably, Pelosi did say she would accept McCarthy’s three other nominees — including Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Wi.), who also voted against certifying Biden’s win.
McCarthy Threatens Separate Investigation
McCarthy, however, refused to select new members, and instead opted to remove all his appointees from the would-be bipartisan committee.
In a statement condemning the move, the minority leader said that Pelosi’s action “represents an egregious abuse of power.”
“Denying the voices of members who have served in the military and law enforcement, as well as leaders of standing committees, has made it undeniable that this panel has lost all legitimacy and credibility and shows the Speaker is more interested in playing politics than seeking the truth,” he said.
“Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republican nominees, Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts.”
Pelosi defended her decision during a press conference Thursday, where she said that Banks and Jordan were “ridiculous” choices for the panel.
“When statements are ridiculous and fall into the realm of, ‘You must be kidding,’ there’s no way that they’re going to be on the committee,” she added.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (CNBC)
More Republican Are Pushing COVID Vaccinations, But the Party Remains Divided on Its Messaging
The renewed effort to encourage vaccination comes as the surge in COVID cases caused by the delta variant continues to disproportionately impact Republican-led states with low vaccination rates.
GOP Leaders Ramps Up Vaccination Push
In recent days, more Republican leaders and prominent conservatives have ramped up efforts to encourage members of their party to get vaccinated against COVID-19 as the U.S. continues to see massive surges from the delta variant.
Some, like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), have been pushing Americans to get vaccinated for months — a call he reiterated again on Tuesday. Many others, however, have been reticent to do the same until recently.
Most notable on that list is Rep. Steve Scalise (La.), the no. 2 Republican in House leadership, who just got his first dose over the weekend after resisting vaccination, claiming he had antibodies from previously contracting COVID. Scalise explained he changed his mind because of delta and encouraged others to do the same.
“There shouldn’t be any hesitancy over whether or not it’s safe and effective,” he said.
The top leader is set to continue pushing that advice. Earlier this week, the GOP Doctors Caucus announced that it would hold a news conference Thursday alongside Scalise and the third-ranking House Republican, Rep. Elise Stefanik (N.Y.), to encourage vaccination.
Rank and File Republicans Continue To Cast Doubt, Spread Misinformation
There are still plenty of Republicans working to undermine the renewed push to get their party vaccinated.
While many have painted vaccination as a matter of freedom of choice, others have sought to downplay the virus. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, whose state currently accounts for 40% of all new COVID cases, dismissed the spikes as the result of a “seasonal virus” on Monday.
Rep. Barry Loudermilk — who has had COVID twice — echoed that in a statement to reporters on Tuesday, where he argued that COVID is just something everyone has to live with.
“This is something we deal with in our lives on a daily basis; ever since I’ve been born, there’s sicknesses, there’s flu, there’s different diseases,” he said.
Some members of the GOP have used their positions of power to actively fight against vaccination. That includes Sen. Ron Johnson (Wi.), who has openly said he is not vaccinated. He has also been widely condemned for promoting unproven treatments and false information about vaccines during interviews and congressional hearings.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), who has repeatedly refused to share her vaccination status, has also drawn ire for sharing misinformation and continually comparing COVID prevention efforts to the Holocaust.
Greene was temporarily suspended from Twitter earlier this week for sharing false information on Monday, but she continued to utilize her spotlight to spread misinformation about vaccine-related deaths and side effects during a press conference the following day.
While those who downplay the coronavirus and spread false information about vaccinations are certainly not representative of the entire Republican Party, they are some of the most visible.
Greene and many of her counterparts who push anti-vaccine narratives have frequently been accused of acting in inflammatory ways to get more press — a strategy that more often than not tends to work in their favor.
As a result, Republicans who want to encourage people to get the jabs will have their work cut out for them. Even many of those who have not openly expressed skepticism themselves have still let it flourish in the party for so long by not publicly pushing back against claims from members who sow disinformation.
The GOP’s broader failure to unify around a singular message on vaccines shows clearly among the party’s base.
According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News, poll 86% of Democrats have received at least one shot, but just 45% of Republicans have done the same. While just 6% of Democrats say they are not likely to get the vaccine, 47% of Republicans said they probably will not, and 38% said they definitely will not.
Meanwhile, Republican-led states with low vaccination rates are suffering the most from the new spike in cases and the rapid spread of the delta variant.
Arkansas, which has one of the lowest vaccination rates in the country at just 35%, is currently reporting the highest per-capita cases in the U.S. Hospitalizations have gone up 85% in the state in the last two weeks, placing some hospital systems on the brink of collapse — a problem also faced by parts of Missouri, which has the third-highest COVID cases nationwide.