- 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)
Supreme Court Begins Contentious New Term as Approval Rating Hits Historic Low
The most volatile cases the court will consider involve affirmative action, voting rights, elections, and civil rights for the LGBTQ+ community.
High Court to Hear Numerous Controversial Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday officially kicked off a new term that will be marked by a number of very contentious cases.
The justices, led by a conservative super-majority, will hear many matters that have enormous implications for the American people.
The first case the court will hear this term involves a major environmental dispute that will determine the scope of government authority under the Clean Water Act — a decision that could have a massive impact on U.S. water quality at a time when water crises’ have been heightened by climate change.
The case also comes amid increasing concerns about federal inaction regarding climate change, especially after the Supreme Court significantly limited the government’s power to act in this area at the end of its last term.
Cases Involving Race
Several of the most anticipated decisions also center around race, including a pair of cases that challenge affirmative action programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.
For over four decades, the high court has repeatedly upheld that race can be a factor in college admissions to ensure a more equitable student body. Despite the fact that multiple challenges have been struck down in the past, the court’s conservative super majority could very well undo 40 years of precedent and undermine essential protections.
The high court will decide a legal battle that could significantly damage key voting protections for minorities set forth under the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The case in question stems from a lower court opinion that invalidated Alabama’s congressional map for violating a provision in the VRA prohibiting voting rules that discriminate on the basis of race.
Alabama had drawn its map so only one of its seven congressional districts was majority Black, despite the fact that nearly one in every three voting-age residents in the state are Black.
States’ Power Over Elections
Also on the topic of gerrymandering and elections, the justices will hear a case that could have a profound impact on the very nature of American democracy. The matter centers around a decision by the North Carolina Supreme Court to strike down the Republican-drawn congressional map on the grounds that it amounted to an illegal gerrymander that violated the state’s Constitution.
The North Carolina GOP appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause gives state legislatures almost total control over how federal elections are carried out in their state under a theory called the independent state legislature doctrine.
“That argument, in its most extreme form, would mean that [sic] no state court and no state agency could interfere with the state legislature’s version of election rules, regardless of the rules set down in the state constitution,” NPR explained.
In other words, if the Supreme Court sides with the North Carolina Republicans, they would essentially be giving state legislatures unchecked power over how voting maps are designed and elections are administered.
Another notable decision the justices will make could have huge implications for the LGBTQ+ community and civil rights more broadly. That matter involved a web designer in Colorado named Lori Smith who refused to design websites for same-sex couples because she believed it violates her right to religious freedoms.
That belief, however, goes against a Colorado nondiscrimination law that bans businesses that serve the public from denying their services to customers based on sexual orientation or identity.
As a result, Smith argues that the Colorado law violates the right to free speech under the First Amendment. If the high court rules in her favor, it would undermine protections for the LGBTQ+ community in Colorado and likely other states with similar laws.
Experts also say such a ruling could go far beyond that. As Georgetown University’s Kelsi Corkran told NPR, “if Smith is correct that there’s a free speech right to selectively choose her customers based on the messages she wants to endorse,” the Colorado law would also allow white supremacists to deny services to people of color because that “would be a message of endorsement.”
Record-Low Approval Rating
The court’s high-stakes docket also comes at a time when its reputation has been marred by questions of legitimacy.
A new Gallup poll published last week found that the Supreme Court’s approval rating has sunk to a record low. Specifically, less than half of Americans said they have at least a “fair amount” of trust in the judicial branch — a 20% drop from just two years ago.
Beyond that, a record number of people also now say that the court is too conservative. Experts argue that these numbers are massively consequential, especially as the U.S. heads into yet another highly-contentious court term.
“The Supreme Court is at an important moment,” Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs told The Hill.
“Trust in the institutions has vastly diminished, certainly among Democrats, and many have a close eye on how they rule on other vital matters. If decisions seem to keep coming from a very pointed political direction, frustration and calls for reform will only mount.”
See what others are saying: (The Hill) (CNN) (The Wall Street Journal)
Biden Mistakenly Calls Out For Dead Lawmaker at White House Event
The remarks prompted concerns about the mental state of the president, who previously mourned the congresswoman’s death in an official White House statement.
Video of President Joe Biden publicly asking if a congresswoman who died last month was present at a White House event went viral Wednesday, giving rise to renewed questions about the leader’s mental acuity.
The remarks were made at the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health, which Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-In.) had helped convene and organize before her sudden death in a car accident.
The president thanked the group of bipartisan lawmakers who helped make the event happen, listing them off one by one, and appearing to look around in search of Rep. Walorski when he reached her name.
“Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie?” he called. “I think she wasn’t going to be here to help make this a reality.”
The incident flummoxed many, especially because Biden had even acknowledged her work on the conference in an official White House statement following her death last month.
“Jill and I are shocked and saddened by the death of Congresswoman Jackie Walorski of Indiana along with two members of her staff in a car accident today in Indiana,” the statement read.
“I appreciated her partnership as we plan for a historic White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health this fall that will be marked by her deep care for the needs of rural America.”
The Age Maximum Question
Numerous social media users and news outlets presented the mishap as evidence that Biden, who is 79, does not have the mental capacity to serve as president. Others, meanwhile, raised the possibility of imposing an age maximum for the presidency.
Most of the comments against the president came from the right, which has regularly questioned his mental stability. However, the idea of an age limit goes beyond Biden and touches on concerns about America’s most important leaders being too old.
While Biden is the oldest president in history, former President Donald Trump — who is 76 and has also had his mental state continually questioned — would have likewise held that title if he had won re-election in 2020.
These concerns extend outside the presidency as well: the current session of Congress is the oldest on average of any Congress in recent history, and the median ages are fairly similar among Republicans and Democrats when separated by chambers.
There is also a higher percentage of federal lawmakers who are older than the median age. Nearly 1 out of every 4 members are over the age of 70.
What’s more, some of the people in the highest leadership positions are among the oldest members. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.), is the oldest-ever House Speaker at 82, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) — the president pro tempore of the Senate and third person in line for the presidency — is the same age, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is 80.
As a result, it is unsurprising that a recent Insider/Morning Consult poll found that 3 in 4 Americans support an age max for members of Congress, and more than 40% say they view the ages of political leaders as a “major” problem.
Those who support the regulations argue that age limits are standard practice in many industries, including for airplane pilots and the military, and thus should be imposed on those who have incredible amounts of power over the country.
However, setting age boundaries on Congress and the President would almost certainly necessitate changes to the Constitution, and because such a move would require federal lawmakers to curtail their own power, there is little political will.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (Business Insider) (NBC News)
Churches Protected Loophole in Abuse Reporting for 20 years, Report Finds
In some cases, Clergy members failed to report abuse among their congregation, but state laws protected them from that responsibility.
A Nationwide Campaign to Hide Abuse
More than 130 bills seeking to create or amend child sexual abuse reporting laws have been neutered or killed due to religious opposition over the past two decades, according to a review by the Associated Press.
Many states have laws requiring professionals such as physicians, teachers, and psychotherapists to report any information pertaining to alleged child sexual abuse to authorities. In 33 states, however, clergy are exempt from those requirements if they deem the information privileged.
All of the reform bills reviewed either targeted this loophole and failed or amended the mandatory reporting statute without touching the loophole.
“The Roman Catholic Church has used its well-funded lobbying infrastructure and deep influence among lawmakers in some states to protect the privilege,” the AP stated. “Influential members of the Mormon church and Jehovah’s witnesses have also worked in statehouses and courts to preserve it in areas where their membership is high.”
“This loophole has resulted in an unknown number of predators being allowed to continue abusing children for years despite having confessed the behavior to religious officials,” the report continued.
“They believe they’re on a divine mission that justifies keeping the name and the reputation of their institution pristine,” David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, told the outlet. “So the leadership has a strong disincentive to involve the authorities, police or child protection people.”
Abuses Go Unreported
Last month, another AP investigation discovered that a Mormon bishop acting under the direction of church leaders in Arizona failed to report a church member who had confessed to sexually abusing his five-year-old daughter.
Merrill Nelson, a church lawyer and Republican lawmaker in Utah, reportedly advised the bishop against making the report because of Arizona’s clergy loophole, effectively allowing the father to allegedly rape and abuse three of his children for years.
Democratic State Sen. Victoria Steele proposed three bills in response to the case to close the loophole but told the AP that key Mormon legislators thwarted her efforts.
In Montana, a woman who was abused by a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses won a $35 million jury verdict against the church because it failed to report her abuse, but in 2020 the state supreme court reversed the judgment, citing the state’s reporting exemption for clergy.
In 2013, a former Idaho police officer turned himself in for abusing children after having told 15 members of the Mormon church, but prosecutors declined to charge the institution for not reporting him because it was protected under the clergy loophole.
The Mormon church said in a written statement to the AP that a member who confesses child sex abuse “has come seeking an opportunity to reconcile with God and to seek forgiveness for their actions. … That confession is considered sacred, and in most states, is regarded as a protected religious conversation owned by the confessor.”