KANSAS CITY – A Mexican national who worked with a drug-trafficking organization tied to the Cárteles Unidos cartel in Michoacán, Mexico, was convicted by a federal trial jury last week for his role in a $4.7 million conspiracy to distribute more than 335 kilograms of methamphetamine and 22 kilograms of heroin in the Kansas City metropolitan area and throughout the United States, according to the United State's Attorney.

Luis Eduardo Pineda-Zarao, 29, a citizen of Mexico residing in Lebanon, Tennessee, was found guilty of participating in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and heroin from Feb. 28, 2020, to June 1, 2022.

The indictment alleges the conspiracy involved the distribution of more than 335.5 kilograms of methamphetamine, with an average street price of $300 per ounce, and more than 22.1 kilograms of heroin, with an average street price of $1,500 per ounce.

During the investigation, federal agents with Homeland Security Investigations conducted two undercover bulk cash pickups totaling $308,775 and seized $610,400 in bulk cash, over 56 kilograms of methamphetamine, 5.5 kilograms of heroin, 2.6 kilograms of marijuana, and at least eight firearms, two of which were stolen. Law enforcement officers also seized $277,863 during a vehicle stop and $114,863 while executing search warrants at four Kansas City, Mo., residences.

Pineda-Zarao is among 44 defendants charged in this case. Nine co-defendants have been sentenced and 34 co-defendants have pleaded guilty and await sentencing.

Following the presentation of evidence, the jury in the U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Mo., deliberated for less than an hour before returning guilty verdicts to U.S. District Judge Greg Kays, ending a trial that began Monday, Oct. 21.

Under federal statutes, Pineda-Zarao is subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in federal prison without parole, up to a sentence of life in federal prison without parole. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes, as the sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the court based on the advisory sentencing guidelines and other statutory factors. A sentencing hearing will be scheduled after the completion of a presentence investigation by the United States Probation Office.

This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Patrick C. Edwards and Megan Baker. It was investigated by Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Jackson County Drug Task Force, IRS-Criminal Investigation, the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, the Kansas City, Mo., Police Department, the Kansas City, Kan., Police Department, the Missouri State Highway Patrol, the Kansas Highway Patrol, the Independence, Mo., Police Department, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, the Minnesota State Patrol, the Olmsted County, Minn., Sheriff’s Office, the Texas Department of Public Safety, the FBI, the Clay County, Mo., Sheriff’s Department, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the U.S. Marshals Service.

Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force

This case is part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) operation. OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level criminal organizations that threaten the United States using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach. Additional information about the OCDETF Program can be found at https://www.justice.gov/OCDETF.

This prosecution was brought as a part of the Department of Justice’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) Co-located Strike Forces Initiative, which provides for the establishment of permanent multi-agency task force teams that work side-by-side in the same location. This co-located model enables agents from different agencies to collaborate on intelligence-driven, multi-jurisdictional operations against a continuum of priority targets and their affiliate illicit financial networks. These prosecutor-led co-located Strike Forces capitalize on the synergy created through the long-term relationships that can be forged by agents, analysts, and prosecutors who remain together over time, and they epitomize the model that has proven most effective in combating organized crime. The principal mission of the OCDETF program is to identify, disrupt, and dismantle the most serious drug trafficking organizations, transnational criminal organizations, and money laundering organizations that present a significant threat to the public safety, economic, or national security of the United States.

KANSAS CITY – A Mexican national who worked with a drug-trafficking organization tied to the Cárteles Unidos cartel in Michoacán, Mexico, was convicted by a federal trial jury last week for his role in a $4.7 million conspiracy to distribute more than 335 kilograms of methamphetamine and 22 kilograms of heroin in the Kansas City metropolitan area and throughout the United States, according to the United State's Attorney.Luis Eduardo Pineda-Zarao, 29, a citizen of Mexico residing in Lebanon, Tennessee, was found guilty of participating in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and heroin from Feb. 28, 2020, to June 1, 2022.The indictment alleges the conspiracy involved the distribution of more than 335.5 kilograms of methamphetamine, with an average street price of $300 per ounce, and more than 22.1 kilograms of heroin, with an average street price of $1,500 per ounce.During the investigation, federal agents with Homeland Security Investigations conducted two undercover bulk cash pickups totaling $308,775 and seized $610,400 in bulk cash, over 56 kilograms of methamphetamine, 5.5 kilograms of heroin, 2.6 kilograms of marijuana, and at least eight firearms, two of which were stolen. Law enforcement officers also seized $277,863 during a vehicle stop and $114,863 while executing search warrants at four Kansas City, Mo., residences.Pineda-Zarao is among 44 defendants charged in this case. Nine co-defendants have been sentenced and 34 co-defendants have pleaded guilty and await sentencing.Following the presentation of evidence, the jury in the U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Mo., deliberated for less than an hour before returning guilty verdicts to U.S. District Judge Greg Kays, ending a trial that began Monday, Oct. 21.Under federal statutes, Pineda-Zarao is subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in federal prison without parole, up to a sentence of life in federal prison without parole. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes, as the sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the court based on the advisory sentencing guidelines and other statutory factors. A sentencing hearing will be scheduled after the completion of a presentence investigation by the United States Probation Office.This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Patrick C. Edwards and Megan Baker. It was investigated by Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Jackson County Drug Task Force, IRS-Criminal Investigation, the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, the Kansas City, Mo., Police Department, the Kansas City, Kan., Police Department, the Missouri State Highway Patrol, the Kansas Highway Patrol, the Independence, Mo., Police Department, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, the Minnesota State Patrol, the Olmsted County, Minn., Sheriff’s Office, the Texas Department of Public Safety, the FBI, the Clay County, Mo., Sheriff’s Department, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the U.S. Marshals Service.Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task ForceThis case is part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) operation. OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level criminal organizations that threaten the United States using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach. Additional information about the OCDETF Program can be found at https://www.justice.gov/OCDETF.KC Metro Strike ForceThis prosecution was brought as a part of the Department of Justice’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) Co-located Strike Forces Initiative, which provides for the establishment of permanent multi-agency task force teams that work side-by-side in the same location. This co-located model enables agents from different agencies to collaborate on intelligence-driven, multi-jurisdictional operations against a continuum of priority targets and their affiliate illicit financial networks. These prosecutor-led co-located Strike Forces capitalize on the synergy created through the long-term relationships that can be forged by agents, analysts, and prosecutors who remain together over time, and they epitomize the model that has proven most effective in combating organized crime. The principal mission of the OCDETF program is to identify, disrupt, and dismantle the most serious drug trafficking organizations, transnational criminal organizations, and money laundering organizations that present a significant threat to the public safety, economic, or national security of the United States.

Jury: Mexican national guilty of $4.7 million meth, heroin conspiracy in KC

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/ashley-murray/">ASHLEY MURRAY</a>

WASHINGTON — The next U.S. president must steer the nation through crises across the globe, including worsening violence in the Middle East, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s refusal to retreat from Ukraine and U.S-China trade relations.

The Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, largely built her career as a prosecutor, but once in Washington she sat on the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, a position that comes with access to highly classified national security files.

As vice president she’s represented the U.S. at high-profile international meetings, including the Munich Security Conference and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation.

The Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump, who followed his wealthy father’s path into real estate and ascended to the status of celebrity businessman, has already held the elected position of Commander-in-Chief for four years — though high-ranking officials who served under him&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/milley-trump-biden-democracy-military-d2abb76858291c87ae856f91e9556d8e" target="_blank">say</a>&nbsp;he&nbsp;<a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bolton-excoriates-trump-fresh-introduction-his-memoir-2024-01-30/" target="_blank">should</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/03/30/mark-esper-wont-vote-for-trump-wont-say-he-will-vote-for-biden-sot-nr-vpx.cnn" target="_blank">not</a>&nbsp;occupy that seat again.

Trump and Harris’ track records can provide clues on how, if elected, they would handle complex and challenging national and economic security policies.

But overall on the campaign trail, foreign policy “has played a back seat role to domestic politics in the 2024 election,” James M. Lindsay, a senior fellow in U.S. foreign policy for the Council on Foreign Relations, told States Newsroom in an interview.

That’s not unusual, Lindsay said, as presidential year politics generally tend to have a domestic focus.

“This has been more a campaign about personalities than about specific policy prescriptions. It’s safe to say that the two candidates have very different world views,” Lindsay said.

Harris centers relationship building, and promised in her Democratic National Convention acceptance speech to “stand strong” with NATO allies.

In Trump’s convention speech he lamented that the U.S. has “long been taken advantage of” by “so-called allies.”

Observers say the former president leads with a transactional outlook: In other words, nations must pay for access to U.S. markets and security.

“Trump thinks that U.S. support to allies is a bad deal for America, whereas Harris realizes that the United States benefits immensely from them,” Matthew Waxman, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and chair of Columbia Law School’s National Security Law Program, told States Newsroom.

But predicting how a presidential candidate would act on the global stage, if elected, is tricky. Conflicts continue to evolve, and those in top defense and diplomatic jobs are likely to turn over.

“It’s partly because a President Harris or President Trump could face a very different situation in the Middle East or in Ukraine come Inauguration Day, but it’s also because in Washington personnel are policy, people are policy,” Lindsay said.

Here are some of the serious international situations either administration will face:

The deadly Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, launched from the Palestinian territory of the Gaza Strip, reignited smoldering regional tensions and highlighted the inextricable U.S. role. Hamas militants killed roughly 1,200 in the brutal and unexpected incursion, and took 250 hostages, many of whom still remain in captivity.

President Joe Biden immediately&nbsp;<a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47828" target="_blank">surged</a>&nbsp;weapons and security aid to the key U.S. defense partner, and in April Congress approved his request for $8.7 billion more in foreign military financing and missile defense.

Israel’s year-long campaign to completely eliminate Iranian-allied Hamas militants from the Gaza Strip has resulted in a staggering death toll, now over 41,000, according to Gaza health officials.

Hamas’ assault also set in motion attacks from other Iranian-backed militias, opening up a war front between Israel and Hezbollah fighters to the north in Lebanon. And for months, Yemen’s Iranian-backed Houthis have terrorized commercial shipping in the Red Sea.

Biden has faced fierce criticism for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war tactics.

Harris, as early as March,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1234822836/kamala-harris-benny-gantz-gaza-cease-fire-israel-hamas" target="_blank">publicly</a>&nbsp;criticized Israel over the humanitarian “<a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us-vp-harris-urges-israeli-government-do-more-boost-aid-into-gaza-2024-03-03/" target="_blank">catastrophe</a>” in Gaza and called for an immediate six-week cease-fire.

Harris, who became the Democratic presidential nominee in mid-summer after Biden dropped his bid, has repeatedly said she defends Israel’s right to defend itself but that “<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/07/25/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-following-meeting-with-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahu-of-israel/" target="_blank">how it does so matters</a>.”

Protesters could be heard in the distance Monday as Harris planted a memorial tree at the vice president’s residence to mark the one-year anniversary of the Oct. 7 attack. Pro-Palestinian activists protesting the death toll in Gaza have marched and rallied throughout the U.S. during the past year.

Harris&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/one-year-oct-7-attack-israel-us-leaders-honor-victims-and-protesters-march" target="_blank">told</a>&nbsp;reporters that the administration is “not giving up” on negotiating a cease-fire deal and release of hostages, an effort that has so far floundered.

“It’s one of the most important ways we will be able to end this war and bring any type of stability to the region. It’s one of the highest priorities of this administration,” she said.

She has not indicated any slowdown or conditions on assistance to Israel if elected — though she continues to advocate for a two-state solution.

“Trump may give Jerusalem less public chastising and criticism, but I’m not sure the policy differences would be that great either,” Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow and foreign policy research director at the Brookings Institution, told States Newsroom. O’Hanlon recently published an article arguing the Trump and Harris defense strategies would at least “<a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-partially-convergent-trump-and-harris-defense-policies/" target="_blank">partially</a>” converge.

Trump maintains that Oct. 7 “would never have happened” had he been in office, and he accuses the Biden administration of inviting the attack because of its “weak” relationship with Iran.

“What is needed more than ever is a return of unwavering American leadership and unquestioned American strength. We were strong, we were powerful … That’s what I intend to deliver as the 47th president of the United States,” he said Monday while in Miami marking one year since the ambush on Israel.

The attack also wrecked any forward progress on the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.state.gov/the-abraham-accords/" target="_blank">Abraham Accords</a>&nbsp;— Trump’s signature Middle East achievement that created full diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco. While those established channels remain steady, the Biden administration’s efforts to strike a deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia are now at a standstill.

Trump is increasingly selling himself on the campaign trail as the candidate of stability who can quash Iran’s aggression — which is pretty much a “standard approach to campaigning,” Lindsay said.

“He is not the first challenger to argue that the incumbent president has been weak.”

But Lindsay said, “the important question isn’t whether he was tougher, it’s whether his policies were more effective.”

For example, the Iranian-backed so-called “axis of resistance” militias currently upending the Middle East were also operating during Trump’s presidency.

“(They) pre-dated his coming into office but it’s not that a Trump administration ended that network of anti-Western, anti-Israeli groups,” Lindsay said. “And during the Trump administration it was the case that Iran both underwrote attacks on American troops and actually launched attacks on American troops.”

Trump drew attention last week to an early January 2020 barrage on U.S. troops in Iraq when he again&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-describes-traumatic-brain-injuries-sustained-us-troops-iraq-headache" target="_blank">described</a>&nbsp;the traumatic brain injuries they suffered as “headaches.”

U.S. troops&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cfr.org/article/us-troops-middle-east-mapping-military-presence" target="_blank">in Iraq and Syria</a>, already a target, have come under increasing fire from Iran-backed militants, with more than 100&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/drone-strike-risks-dangerous-us-iran-escalation" target="_blank">attacks</a>&nbsp;on U.S. service members since Israel began its post-Oct. 7 offensive. A drone strike in January&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/28/politics/us-troops-drone-attack-jordan/index.html" target="_blank">killed</a>&nbsp;three U.S. soldiers and injured 30 at an outpost in Jordan on the Syrian border. The U.S. retaliated by&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/02/02/1228132782/us-biden-iran-drone-response-strike" target="_blank">launching</a>&nbsp;more than 100 precision rockets at 85 of Iran military sites in Iraq and Syria.

The U.S. assisted Israel&nbsp;<a href="https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3923123/us-assets-in-mediterranean-again-helped-defend-israel-against-iranian-missiles/" target="_blank">twice</a>&nbsp;in 2024 in intercepting rockets fired directly from Iran — once in April following Israel’s bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, and again in September after Israel’s assassination of Iranian-backed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut, Lebanon.

“We’re in the last months of the Biden presidency, and Biden’s own, I think, personal influence here is quite diminished. And you know, I can’t predict what Trump policy really would be. I assume he would be less likely to be trying to restrain the Israelis, but so is the Biden administration. And maybe that is a Biden-Harris policy,” Elliott Abrams, CFR’s senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, told reporters on Oct. 2, the day after Iran launched its second direct&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/01/iran-imminent-ballistic-missile-attack-israel-us-warns" target="_blank">attack</a>.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with both&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/zelenskyy-washington-meets-us-leaders-beef-support-ukraine" target="_blank">Harris</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/09/27/u-s-government-unveils-charges-against-iranians-who-hacked-into-trump-2024-campaign/" target="_blank">Trump</a>&nbsp;in recent weeks to shore up continued U.S. support for his country’s ongoing war against Russia’s occupation.

Harris’ meeting with the Ukrainian leader was her seventh, and she pledged continued aid for the eastern European nation on the principle that Putin would continue marching into Europe if allies relent on Ukraine.

Harris supports continued U.S. assistance, which has&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-us-aid-going-ukraine" target="_blank">totaled</a>&nbsp;roughly $175 billion since 2022. At the Ukraine peace&nbsp;<a href="https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024/06/16/joint-communique-on-a-peace-framework-summit-on-peace-in-ukraine/" target="_blank">summit</a>&nbsp;in Switzerland in June, Harris&nbsp;<a href="https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20240723-from-gaza-to-china-where-kamala-harris-stands-on-foreign-policy-issues" target="_blank">pledged</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/jun-15-2024-/vice-president-kamala-harris-announces-over-1-billion-bolster-ukraines-energy-sector-address-humanitarian-needs-and-strengthen-civilian-security" target="_blank">nearly</a>&nbsp;$2 billion, some new and some redirected, to bolster the country’s energy sector and add to humanitarian efforts.

The vice president has&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/02/19/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-at-the-munich-security-conference/" target="_blank">represented</a>&nbsp;the U.S.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/02/18/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-at-the-munich-security-conference-2/" target="_blank">three</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/02/16/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-at-the-munich-security-conference-munich-germany/" target="_blank">times</a>&nbsp;at the annual Munich Security Conference in Germany, where she praised the NATO alliance and said the U.S. commitment to its principles is “ironclad.”

When facing Harris on the presidential debate stage in September, Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/harris-tears-trump-over-abortion-rights-and-race-tense-presidential-debate" target="_blank">refused</a>&nbsp;to answer whether he wants Ukraine to be victorious over Russia.

Trump’s rhetoric and past behavior “spells bad news for Ukraine,” Waxman said.

“He is likely to reduce American support for Ukraine and push Ukraine to make concessions to Russia. Overall, Trump’s transactional approach to leader-to-leader diplomacy is likely to benefit Putin,” Waxman continued. “Whereas Harris wants to invest in alliances like NATO, Trump is skeptical of them.”

That type of leader-to-leader communication was notoriously highlighted in 2019 when U.S. House lawmakers&nbsp;<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-4-9/ALDE_00000035/" target="_blank">impeached</a>&nbsp;Trump for directly threatening to withhold Ukraine aid if Zelenskyy did not announce an investigation into Biden — Trump’s presidential campaign rival at the time. The Senate acquitted Trump.

Like his campaign line on the Israel attack, Trump also repeatedly claims that had he been in office, instead of Biden, Russia would have never launched its February 2022 attack on Ukraine.

“The war in Ukraine did not begin in February of ‘22, it began back in 2014,” Lindsay said, referring to Putin’s forced annexation of the Crimean Peninsula.

Trump’s own administration&nbsp;<a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/on-the-record-the-u-s-administrations-actions-on-russia/" target="_blank">expanded</a>&nbsp;Obama-era sanctions meant to punish Russia’s actions in Crimea.

“Experts can argue about how to dole out criticism across administrations, but clearly the issue of Russian support for a notionally independent insurrection in eastern Ukraine was not solved during the Trump presidency,” Lindsay continued.

Foreign trade is a “political hot potato,” and neither Harris nor Trump are offering much clarity for U.S. trading partners around the world, Mary E. Lovely, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told States Newsroom in an interview.

Lovely described the Biden-Harris approach as multipronged, in that they’ve instituted policies to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. while also aiming to maintain good trade relationships with partner nations.

The tightrope walk becomes even trickier as U.S. policy also&nbsp;<a href="https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/while-us-and-china-decouple-eu-and-china-deepen-trade-dependencies" target="_blank">disincentivizes</a>&nbsp;materials and components from China — one of the world’s largest trading nations — in the final products imported from trading partners. Think: components in solar panels and electric vehicles.

The Biden administration’s major legislative accomplishments — the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act — provided major subsidies for “reshoring,” or returning to the U.S., clean energy and semiconductor production. But the policies were not without risks to U.S. trading partners.

“We had a lot of things (in the legislation), including things that upset the allies — you know, subsidies for American businesses, that they saw potentially as pulling investment out of their economies,” Lovely said.

“These are things that the European Union, Japan, Korea were concerned about,” Lovely continued. “So we’ve seen it there — this tension between foreign policy and this idea of economic security.”

While Lovely said she worries about how some of the Biden-Harris trade policies might affect competition and the nation’s ability to sign timely trade agreements, she said Trump’s plans are overall “destabilizing.”

“The increased use of tariffs is misguided at best,” Lovely said.

Trump’s promise to not only increase tariffs on Chinese imports to 60%, but also to slap flat 10% to 20% tariffs on all imports across the board is akin to “starting a trade war with the entire world.”

“We’re not going to see those kinds of tariffs without retaliation,” Lovely said.

If enacted, the tariffs would be particularly challenging for Indo-Pacific countries that rely on U.S. partnership in the face of China’s regional dominance.

“I mean, you can imagine how this will go down in, say, Japan and Korea, two countries which rely on the U.S. for a security umbrella, which is why Trump thinks that he can do stuff to them. But they also have to protect their own economies,” Lovely said. “So it’s going to put them in a really terrible position because it’s very important for them to maintain their alliance with the U.S., economic as well as military.”

But one thing is for sure, Lovely said: “Everybody wants to know what’s going to happen. Everybody in every embassy here in Washington.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/9/1695389171060.png" alt="File photo -President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy&nbsp; and U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin- photo courtesy White House" />
 <figcaption>File photo -President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy&nbsp; and U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin- photo courtesy White House</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/ashley-murray/">ASHLEY MURRAY</a>WASHINGTON — The next U.S. president must steer the nation through crises across the globe, including worsening violence in the Middle East, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s refusal to retreat from Ukraine and U.S-China trade relations.The Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, largely built her career as a prosecutor, but once in Washington she sat on the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, a position that comes with access to highly classified national security files.As vice president she’s represented the U.S. at high-profile international meetings, including the Munich Security Conference and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation.The Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump, who followed his wealthy father’s path into real estate and ascended to the status of celebrity businessman, has already held the elected position of Commander-in-Chief for four years — though high-ranking officials who served under him&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/milley-trump-biden-democracy-military-d2abb76858291c87ae856f91e9556d8e" target="_blank">say</a>&nbsp;he&nbsp;<a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bolton-excoriates-trump-fresh-introduction-his-memoir-2024-01-30/" target="_blank">should</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/03/30/mark-esper-wont-vote-for-trump-wont-say-he-will-vote-for-biden-sot-nr-vpx.cnn" target="_blank">not</a>&nbsp;occupy that seat again.Trump and Harris’ track records can provide clues on how, if elected, they would handle complex and challenging national and economic security policies.But overall on the campaign trail, foreign policy “has played a back seat role to domestic politics in the 2024 election,” James M. Lindsay, a senior fellow in U.S. foreign policy for the Council on Foreign Relations, told States Newsroom in an interview.That’s not unusual, Lindsay said, as presidential year politics generally tend to have a domestic focus.“This has been more a campaign about personalities than about specific policy prescriptions. It’s safe to say that the two candidates have very different world views,” Lindsay said.<h2>Relationships with allies</h2>Harris centers relationship building, and promised in her Democratic National Convention acceptance speech to “stand strong” with NATO allies.In Trump’s convention speech he lamented that the U.S. has “long been taken advantage of” by “so-called allies.”Observers say the former president leads with a transactional outlook: In other words, nations must pay for access to U.S. markets and security.“Trump thinks that U.S. support to allies is a bad deal for America, whereas Harris realizes that the United States benefits immensely from them,” Matthew Waxman, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and chair of Columbia Law School’s National Security Law Program, told States Newsroom.But predicting how a presidential candidate would act on the global stage, if elected, is tricky. Conflicts continue to evolve, and those in top defense and diplomatic jobs are likely to turn over.“It’s partly because a President Harris or President Trump could face a very different situation in the Middle East or in Ukraine come Inauguration Day, but it’s also because in Washington personnel are policy, people are policy,” Lindsay said.Here are some of the serious international situations either administration will face:<h2>Middle East</h2>The deadly Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, launched from the Palestinian territory of the Gaza Strip, reignited smoldering regional tensions and highlighted the inextricable U.S. role. Hamas militants killed roughly 1,200 in the brutal and unexpected incursion, and took 250 hostages, many of whom still remain in captivity.President Joe Biden immediately&nbsp;<a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47828" target="_blank">surged</a>&nbsp;weapons and security aid to the key U.S. defense partner, and in April Congress approved his request for $8.7 billion more in foreign military financing and missile defense.Israel’s year-long campaign to completely eliminate Iranian-allied Hamas militants from the Gaza Strip has resulted in a staggering death toll, now over 41,000, according to Gaza health officials.Hamas’ assault also set in motion attacks from other Iranian-backed militias, opening up a war front between Israel and Hezbollah fighters to the north in Lebanon. And for months, Yemen’s Iranian-backed Houthis have terrorized commercial shipping in the Red Sea.Biden has faced fierce criticism for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war tactics.Harris, as early as March,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1234822836/kamala-harris-benny-gantz-gaza-cease-fire-israel-hamas" target="_blank">publicly</a>&nbsp;criticized Israel over the humanitarian “<a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us-vp-harris-urges-israeli-government-do-more-boost-aid-into-gaza-2024-03-03/" target="_blank">catastrophe</a>” in Gaza and called for an immediate six-week cease-fire.Harris, who became the Democratic presidential nominee in mid-summer after Biden dropped his bid, has repeatedly said she defends Israel’s right to defend itself but that “<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/07/25/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-following-meeting-with-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahu-of-israel/" target="_blank">how it does so matters</a>.”Protesters could be heard in the distance Monday as Harris planted a memorial tree at the vice president’s residence to mark the one-year anniversary of the Oct. 7 attack. Pro-Palestinian activists protesting the death toll in Gaza have marched and rallied throughout the U.S. during the past year.Harris&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/one-year-oct-7-attack-israel-us-leaders-honor-victims-and-protesters-march" target="_blank">told</a>&nbsp;reporters that the administration is “not giving up” on negotiating a cease-fire deal and release of hostages, an effort that has so far floundered.“It’s one of the most important ways we will be able to end this war and bring any type of stability to the region. It’s one of the highest priorities of this administration,” she said.She has not indicated any slowdown or conditions on assistance to Israel if elected — though she continues to advocate for a two-state solution.“Trump may give Jerusalem less public chastising and criticism, but I’m not sure the policy differences would be that great either,” Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow and foreign policy research director at the Brookings Institution, told States Newsroom. O’Hanlon recently published an article arguing the Trump and Harris defense strategies would at least “<a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-partially-convergent-trump-and-harris-defense-policies/" target="_blank">partially</a>” converge.Trump maintains that Oct. 7 “would never have happened” had he been in office, and he accuses the Biden administration of inviting the attack because of its “weak” relationship with Iran.“What is needed more than ever is a return of unwavering American leadership and unquestioned American strength. We were strong, we were powerful … That’s what I intend to deliver as the 47th president of the United States,” he said Monday while in Miami marking one year since the ambush on Israel.The attack also wrecked any forward progress on the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.state.gov/the-abraham-accords/" target="_blank">Abraham Accords</a>&nbsp;— Trump’s signature Middle East achievement that created full diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco. While those established channels remain steady, the Biden administration’s efforts to strike a deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia are now at a standstill.Trump is increasingly selling himself on the campaign trail as the candidate of stability who can quash Iran’s aggression — which is pretty much a “standard approach to campaigning,” Lindsay said.“He is not the first challenger to argue that the incumbent president has been weak.”But Lindsay said, “the important question isn’t whether he was tougher, it’s whether his policies were more effective.”For example, the Iranian-backed so-called “axis of resistance” militias currently upending the Middle East were also operating during Trump’s presidency.“(They) pre-dated his coming into office but it’s not that a Trump administration ended that network of anti-Western, anti-Israeli groups,” Lindsay said. “And during the Trump administration it was the case that Iran both underwrote attacks on American troops and actually launched attacks on American troops.”Trump drew attention last week to an early January 2020 barrage on U.S. troops in Iraq when he again&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-describes-traumatic-brain-injuries-sustained-us-troops-iraq-headache" target="_blank">described</a>&nbsp;the traumatic brain injuries they suffered as “headaches.”U.S. troops&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cfr.org/article/us-troops-middle-east-mapping-military-presence" target="_blank">in Iraq and Syria</a>, already a target, have come under increasing fire from Iran-backed militants, with more than 100&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/drone-strike-risks-dangerous-us-iran-escalation" target="_blank">attacks</a>&nbsp;on U.S. service members since Israel began its post-Oct. 7 offensive. A drone strike in January&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/28/politics/us-troops-drone-attack-jordan/index.html" target="_blank">killed</a>&nbsp;three U.S. soldiers and injured 30 at an outpost in Jordan on the Syrian border. The U.S. retaliated by&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/02/02/1228132782/us-biden-iran-drone-response-strike" target="_blank">launching</a>&nbsp;more than 100 precision rockets at 85 of Iran military sites in Iraq and Syria.The U.S. assisted Israel&nbsp;<a href="https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3923123/us-assets-in-mediterranean-again-helped-defend-israel-against-iranian-missiles/" target="_blank">twice</a>&nbsp;in 2024 in intercepting rockets fired directly from Iran — once in April following Israel’s bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, and again in September after Israel’s assassination of Iranian-backed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut, Lebanon.“We’re in the last months of the Biden presidency, and Biden’s own, I think, personal influence here is quite diminished. And you know, I can’t predict what Trump policy really would be. I assume he would be less likely to be trying to restrain the Israelis, but so is the Biden administration. And maybe that is a Biden-Harris policy,” Elliott Abrams, CFR’s senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, told reporters on Oct. 2, the day after Iran launched its second direct&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/01/iran-imminent-ballistic-missile-attack-israel-us-warns" target="_blank">attack</a>.<h2>Ukraine and NATO</h2>Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with both&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/zelenskyy-washington-meets-us-leaders-beef-support-ukraine" target="_blank">Harris</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/09/27/u-s-government-unveils-charges-against-iranians-who-hacked-into-trump-2024-campaign/" target="_blank">Trump</a>&nbsp;in recent weeks to shore up continued U.S. support for his country’s ongoing war against Russia’s occupation.Harris’ meeting with the Ukrainian leader was her seventh, and she pledged continued aid for the eastern European nation on the principle that Putin would continue marching into Europe if allies relent on Ukraine.Harris supports continued U.S. assistance, which has&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-us-aid-going-ukraine" target="_blank">totaled</a>&nbsp;roughly $175 billion since 2022. At the Ukraine peace&nbsp;<a href="https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024/06/16/joint-communique-on-a-peace-framework-summit-on-peace-in-ukraine/" target="_blank">summit</a>&nbsp;in Switzerland in June, Harris&nbsp;<a href="https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20240723-from-gaza-to-china-where-kamala-harris-stands-on-foreign-policy-issues" target="_blank">pledged</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/jun-15-2024-/vice-president-kamala-harris-announces-over-1-billion-bolster-ukraines-energy-sector-address-humanitarian-needs-and-strengthen-civilian-security" target="_blank">nearly</a>&nbsp;$2 billion, some new and some redirected, to bolster the country’s energy sector and add to humanitarian efforts.The vice president has&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/02/19/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-at-the-munich-security-conference/" target="_blank">represented</a>&nbsp;the U.S.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/02/18/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-at-the-munich-security-conference-2/" target="_blank">three</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/02/16/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-at-the-munich-security-conference-munich-germany/" target="_blank">times</a>&nbsp;at the annual Munich Security Conference in Germany, where she praised the NATO alliance and said the U.S. commitment to its principles is “ironclad.”When facing Harris on the presidential debate stage in September, Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/harris-tears-trump-over-abortion-rights-and-race-tense-presidential-debate" target="_blank">refused</a>&nbsp;to answer whether he wants Ukraine to be victorious over Russia.Trump’s rhetoric and past behavior “spells bad news for Ukraine,” Waxman said.“He is likely to reduce American support for Ukraine and push Ukraine to make concessions to Russia. Overall, Trump’s transactional approach to leader-to-leader diplomacy is likely to benefit Putin,” Waxman continued. “Whereas Harris wants to invest in alliances like NATO, Trump is skeptical of them.”That type of leader-to-leader communication was notoriously highlighted in 2019 when U.S. House lawmakers&nbsp;<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-4-9/ALDE_00000035/" target="_blank">impeached</a>&nbsp;Trump for directly threatening to withhold Ukraine aid if Zelenskyy did not announce an investigation into Biden — Trump’s presidential campaign rival at the time. The Senate acquitted Trump.Like his campaign line on the Israel attack, Trump also repeatedly claims that had he been in office, instead of Biden, Russia would have never launched its February 2022 attack on Ukraine.“The war in Ukraine did not begin in February of ‘22, it began back in 2014,” Lindsay said, referring to Putin’s forced annexation of the Crimean Peninsula.Trump’s own administration&nbsp;<a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/on-the-record-the-u-s-administrations-actions-on-russia/" target="_blank">expanded</a>&nbsp;Obama-era sanctions meant to punish Russia’s actions in Crimea.“Experts can argue about how to dole out criticism across administrations, but clearly the issue of Russian support for a notionally independent insurrection in eastern Ukraine was not solved during the Trump presidency,” Lindsay continued.<h2>China and trade</h2>Foreign trade is a “political hot potato,” and neither Harris nor Trump are offering much clarity for U.S. trading partners around the world, Mary E. Lovely, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told States Newsroom in an interview.Lovely described the Biden-Harris approach as multipronged, in that they’ve instituted policies to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. while also aiming to maintain good trade relationships with partner nations.The tightrope walk becomes even trickier as U.S. policy also&nbsp;<a href="https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/while-us-and-china-decouple-eu-and-china-deepen-trade-dependencies" target="_blank">disincentivizes</a>&nbsp;materials and components from China — one of the world’s largest trading nations — in the final products imported from trading partners. Think: components in solar panels and electric vehicles.The Biden administration’s major legislative accomplishments — the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act — provided major subsidies for “reshoring,” or returning to the U.S., clean energy and semiconductor production. But the policies were not without risks to U.S. trading partners.“We had a lot of things (in the legislation), including things that upset the allies — you know, subsidies for American businesses, that they saw potentially as pulling investment out of their economies,” Lovely said.“These are things that the European Union, Japan, Korea were concerned about,” Lovely continued. “So we’ve seen it there — this tension between foreign policy and this idea of economic security.”While Lovely said she worries about how some of the Biden-Harris trade policies might affect competition and the nation’s ability to sign timely trade agreements, she said Trump’s plans are overall “destabilizing.”“The increased use of tariffs is misguided at best,” Lovely said.Trump’s promise to not only increase tariffs on Chinese imports to 60%, but also to slap flat 10% to 20% tariffs on all imports across the board is akin to “starting a trade war with the entire world.”“We’re not going to see those kinds of tariffs without retaliation,” Lovely said.If enacted, the tariffs would be particularly challenging for Indo-Pacific countries that rely on U.S. partnership in the face of China’s regional dominance.“I mean, you can imagine how this will go down in, say, Japan and Korea, two countries which rely on the U.S. for a security umbrella, which is why Trump thinks that he can do stuff to them. But they also have to protect their own economies,” Lovely said. “So it’s going to put them in a really terrible position because it’s very important for them to maintain their alliance with the U.S., economic as well as military.”But one thing is for sure, Lovely said: “Everybody wants to know what’s going to happen. Everybody in every embassy here in Washington.”

Foreign policy: Where do Harris and Trump stand?

This is one in a series of States Newsroom reports on the major policy issues in the presidential race.

WASHINGTON — Democrats have increasingly cried out for new rules for the nation’s highest court, and the 2024 presidential election reflects a clear party divide over how Supreme Court justices should behave and whether they should remain on the bench for life.

The erasure of a nearly 50-year-old national right to abortion, the granting of wide latitude for former presidents to escape criminal accountability and several ethics scandals magnified these questions. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump are giving voters very different answers.

Harris’&nbsp;<a href="https://kamalaharris.com/issues/" target="_blank">platform</a>&nbsp;calls for “common-sense” reforms that include term limits for justices and an enforceable ethics code that mirrors the rules that apply to lower federal judges.

When President Joe Biden&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/biden-urges-term-limits-us-supreme-court-justices-new-ethics-rules" target="_blank">announced</a>&nbsp;his proposals for Supreme Court ethics reform roughly one week after dropping his bid for reelection, Harris issued a statement reinforcing the need to “restore confidence” in the court.

“That is why President Biden and I are calling on Congress to pass important reforms — from imposing term limits for Justices’ active service, to requiring Justices to comply with binding ethics rules just like every other federal judge. And finally, in our democracy, no one should be above the law. So we must also ensure that no former President has immunity for crimes committed while in the White House,” she said.

While Harris’ campaign did not provide additional details on her platform, Harris has a record of supporting such measures. As a senator in 2019, Harris co-sponsored a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/393?s=4&amp;r=476" target="_blank">bill</a>&nbsp;to enforce a uniform ethics code at every level of the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court.

When asked for comment about Trump’s stance on enforceable ethics rules or term limits at the Supreme Court, Trump campaign Senior Advisor Brian Hughes responded: “President Trump has said that, apart from matters of war and peace, the nomination of a Supreme Court justice is the most important decision an American President can make. As president, he appointed constitutionalist judges who interpret the law as written, and he will do so again when voters send him back to the White House.”

The former president has made his opposition to change known on social media.

Nearly two weeks before Biden’s speech in July to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/29/joe-biden-reform-supreme-court-presidential-immunity-plan-announcement/" target="_blank">roll out</a>&nbsp;his ideas for improving the court, Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112798594310559815" target="_blank">wrote</a>&nbsp;on Truth Social that the “Radical Left Democrats are desperately trying to ‘Play the Ref’ by calling for an illegal and unConstitutional attack on our SACRED United States Supreme Court.”

“The reason that these Communists are so despondent is that their unLawful Witch Hunts are failing everywhere. The Democrats are attempting to interfere in the Presidential Election, and destroy our Justice System, by attacking their Political Opponent, ME, and our Honorable Supreme Court. We have to fight for our Fair and Independent Courts, and protect our Country. MAGA2024!” he continued, randomly capitalizing words as he often does.

The Republican National Committee stated in its&nbsp;<a href="https://rncplatform.donaldjtrump.com/?_gl=1*1rfs4mg*_gcl_aw*R0NMLjE3Mjc3MDk0MDAuQ2owS0NRandtT20zQmhDOEFSSXNBT1NiYXBWZlV5WUV5Z0VCSlVrdS1UUFhsSzlBdFlzU1d0cUxVSEJ6Y0dNaEEyaFNrR2NsTm5GOU9TNGFBamVlRUFMd193Y0I.*_gcl_au*MTc2MjY5MTQ3Ny4xNzI1Mzc2OTQwLjg5MTAzNzIyNy4xNzI4Mzk4NzIwLjE3MjgzOTg5MDQ.&amp;_ga=2.5949424.2129307976.1729440058-1161412080.1725376940&amp;_gac=1.186981850.1727709400.Cj0KCQjwmOm3BhC8ARIsAOSbapVfUyYEygEBJUku-TPXlK9AtYsSWtqLUHBzcGMhA2hSkGclNnF9OS4aAjeeEALw_wcB" target="_blank">platform</a>&nbsp;that the party unequivocally opposes any changes to the number of Supreme Court justices.

“We will maintain the Supreme Court as it was always meant to be, at 9 Justices. We will not allow the Democrat Party to increase this number, as they would like to do, by 4, 6, 8, 10, and even 12 Justices. We will block them at every turn.”

At the Economic Club of Chicago on Oct. 15, Trump appeared to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?539131-1/president-trump-interview-economic-club-chicago" target="_blank">accuse</a>&nbsp;Democrats of wanting to add up to 25 new justices to the Supreme Court bench.

Harris’ 2024 campaign position on the Supreme Court does not include a plan to change the number of justices. During her 2020 presidential run, Harris expressed an openness to expanding the court, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/31/harris-biden-supreme-court-reform-00172010?is_magic_link=true&amp;template_id=OTJIR2CRKUD6&amp;template_variant_id=OTVPXN5JGTYRX" target="_blank">Politico</a>&nbsp;and other reports. Biden, at the time, remained&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/NewsHour/status/1320842408549093378" target="_blank">opposed</a>&nbsp;to changes, including justice term limits.

When Trump was&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/fueled-lies-trump-charged-seeking-overturn-2020-election-6" target="_blank">charged</a>&nbsp;with federal fraud and obstruction crimes for his attempts to subvert the 2020 presidential election results, he&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-asks-us-supreme-court-pause-federal-trial-over-presidential-immunity-question" target="_blank">escalated</a>&nbsp;his appeal for presidential immunity all the way to the Supreme Court.

On July 1, the justices issued a 6-3&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf" target="_blank">opinion</a>&nbsp;granting former presidents criminal immunity for “core constitutional” duties and presumptive immunity for actions on the “outer perimeter” of official duties, but none for unofficial, personal acts.

Two of the justices who joined the conservative majority ruling — Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — were Trump appointees. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, also appointed during Trump’s time in the Oval Office, joined them, concurring in part.

Trump’s case was delayed for the better part of 2024, tied up in the high court process as he campaigned for a second presidency. The delay ultimately closed the door on a trial before November’s election.

The high-profile case not only highlighted the fact that Trump was being judged by his own appointees, but also that two other justices had been recently exposed in ethics scandals involving Republican donors and appearing to show support for Trump’s false claims that he won the 2020 election.

In April 2023, ProPublica&nbsp;<a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow" target="_blank">uncovered</a>&nbsp;that Justice Clarence Thomas had been accepting luxury travel and other big ticket gifts from Republican billionaire donor Harlan Crow.

In May of this year, the New York Times&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/us/justice-alito-upside-down-flag.html" target="_blank">published</a>&nbsp;photos of an upside-down American flag flying outside the home of Justice Samuel Alito following the violent riot by Trump supporters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The upside-down flag, a general symbol of protest, had been adopted by Trump supporters who believed the 2020 election was stolen.

All parties have denied any wrongdoing, and Alito&nbsp;<a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Letter%20from%20Justice%20Alito%20to%20Senators%20Durbin%20and%20Whitehouse.pdf" target="_blank">declined</a>&nbsp;to recuse himself from Trump’s 2020 election subversion case, and another&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/divided-us-supreme-court-wrestles-case-pennsylvania-man-who-joined-jan-6-mob" target="_blank">case</a>&nbsp;brought by a Jan. 6 defendant.

While the Thomas and Alito scandals attracted the most attention, observers of the court say many of the justices’ actions raise ethics questions.

Gabe Roth, founder of the nonpartisan nonprofit Fix the Court, said “no justice has totally behaved ethically.”

Roth cited transgressions by both conservative and liberal justices: socializing with litigants who argue before the court, the use of government resources to promote a personal book and instances of justices not recusing themselves from cases in which they appear to have a stake.

“It hasn’t been to the scale of the things that ProPublica uncovered, but no justice is fully pure when it comes to ethics issues, which is not to say that they’re all corrupt or they’re all compromised by any means. It’s just more, to me, a fact that the whole institution needs to focus more on ethical leadership,” Roth said.

ProPublica&nbsp;<a href="https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/propublica-work-joshua-kaplan-justin-elliott-brett-murphy-alex-mierjeski-and-kirsten-berg" target="_blank">published</a>&nbsp;numerous stories in 2023 detailing gifts Thomas never disclosed, as well as a luxury fishing expedition Alito took with a Republican billionaire who argued before the court.

The Supreme Court currently polices itself with its own&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf" target="_blank">code</a>&nbsp;of conduct and maintains justices already follow rules that apply to lower federal judges.

Congressional Democrats have introduced several bills aiming to impose ethics rules on the justices and limit life-time appointments, for example to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4423/text?s=1&amp;r=1&amp;q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22supreme+court+term+limits%22%7D" target="_blank">18 years</a>.

A bill led by Senate Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/ethics-rules-supreme-court-justices-approved-party-line-vote-us-senate-panel" target="_blank">passed</a>&nbsp;the Democratic-led Senate Committee on the Judiciary in July 2023.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/359/text?s=1&amp;r=4&amp;q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22supreme+court+ethics%22%5D%7D" target="_blank">legislation</a>&nbsp;aimed to mandate an enforceable ethics code, tighten recusal and gift disclosure requirements, and establish a complaints process similar to that of the lower courts.

An&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1djxXNlOjOkGZ" target="_blank">attempt</a>&nbsp;at unanimous consent passage on the Senate floor in June was blocked by Senate Judiciary’s top Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

“Let’s be clear, this is not about improving the court, this is about undermining the court,” Graham said on the floor.

Roth said no matter who wins the presidency and which party takes control of the Senate, the longtime fight for an ethics overhaul and term limits at the high court will continue — and that it shouldn’t be partisan.

“If they’re done right, it doesn’t favor one party or another or one ideology or another. It’s a bit weird that one side is saying they don’t love ethics right now,” Roth continued. “I don’t get it.”

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/ashley-murray/">ASHLEY MURRAY</a>This is one in a series of States Newsroom reports on the major policy issues in the presidential race.WASHINGTON — Democrats have increasingly cried out for new rules for the nation’s highest court, and the 2024 presidential election reflects a clear party divide over how Supreme Court justices should behave and whether they should remain on the bench for life.The erasure of a nearly 50-year-old national right to abortion, the granting of wide latitude for former presidents to escape criminal accountability and several ethics scandals magnified these questions. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump are giving voters very different answers.Harris’&nbsp;<a href="https://kamalaharris.com/issues/" target="_blank">platform</a>&nbsp;calls for “common-sense” reforms that include term limits for justices and an enforceable ethics code that mirrors the rules that apply to lower federal judges.When President Joe Biden&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/biden-urges-term-limits-us-supreme-court-justices-new-ethics-rules" target="_blank">announced</a>&nbsp;his proposals for Supreme Court ethics reform roughly one week after dropping his bid for reelection, Harris issued a statement reinforcing the need to “restore confidence” in the court.“That is why President Biden and I are calling on Congress to pass important reforms — from imposing term limits for Justices’ active service, to requiring Justices to comply with binding ethics rules just like every other federal judge. And finally, in our democracy, no one should be above the law. So we must also ensure that no former President has immunity for crimes committed while in the White House,” she said.While Harris’ campaign did not provide additional details on her platform, Harris has a record of supporting such measures. As a senator in 2019, Harris co-sponsored a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/393?s=4&amp;r=476" target="_blank">bill</a>&nbsp;to enforce a uniform ethics code at every level of the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court.<h2>Trump position</h2>When asked for comment about Trump’s stance on enforceable ethics rules or term limits at the Supreme Court, Trump campaign Senior Advisor Brian Hughes responded: “President Trump has said that, apart from matters of war and peace, the nomination of a Supreme Court justice is the most important decision an American President can make. As president, he appointed constitutionalist judges who interpret the law as written, and he will do so again when voters send him back to the White House.”The former president has made his opposition to change known on social media.Nearly two weeks before Biden’s speech in July to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/29/joe-biden-reform-supreme-court-presidential-immunity-plan-announcement/" target="_blank">roll out</a>&nbsp;his ideas for improving the court, Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112798594310559815" target="_blank">wrote</a>&nbsp;on Truth Social that the “Radical Left Democrats are desperately trying to ‘Play the Ref’ by calling for an illegal and unConstitutional attack on our SACRED United States Supreme Court.”“The reason that these Communists are so despondent is that their unLawful Witch Hunts are failing everywhere. The Democrats are attempting to interfere in the Presidential Election, and destroy our Justice System, by attacking their Political Opponent, ME, and our Honorable Supreme Court. We have to fight for our Fair and Independent Courts, and protect our Country. MAGA2024!” he continued, randomly capitalizing words as he often does.The Republican National Committee stated in its&nbsp;<a href="https://rncplatform.donaldjtrump.com/?_gl=1*1rfs4mg*_gcl_aw*R0NMLjE3Mjc3MDk0MDAuQ2owS0NRandtT20zQmhDOEFSSXNBT1NiYXBWZlV5WUV5Z0VCSlVrdS1UUFhsSzlBdFlzU1d0cUxVSEJ6Y0dNaEEyaFNrR2NsTm5GOU9TNGFBamVlRUFMd193Y0I.*_gcl_au*MTc2MjY5MTQ3Ny4xNzI1Mzc2OTQwLjg5MTAzNzIyNy4xNzI4Mzk4NzIwLjE3MjgzOTg5MDQ.&amp;_ga=2.5949424.2129307976.1729440058-1161412080.1725376940&amp;_gac=1.186981850.1727709400.Cj0KCQjwmOm3BhC8ARIsAOSbapVfUyYEygEBJUku-TPXlK9AtYsSWtqLUHBzcGMhA2hSkGclNnF9OS4aAjeeEALw_wcB" target="_blank">platform</a>&nbsp;that the party unequivocally opposes any changes to the number of Supreme Court justices.“We will maintain the Supreme Court as it was always meant to be, at 9 Justices. We will not allow the Democrat Party to increase this number, as they would like to do, by 4, 6, 8, 10, and even 12 Justices. We will block them at every turn.”At the Economic Club of Chicago on Oct. 15, Trump appeared to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?539131-1/president-trump-interview-economic-club-chicago" target="_blank">accuse</a>&nbsp;Democrats of wanting to add up to 25 new justices to the Supreme Court bench.Harris’ 2024 campaign position on the Supreme Court does not include a plan to change the number of justices. During her 2020 presidential run, Harris expressed an openness to expanding the court, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/31/harris-biden-supreme-court-reform-00172010?is_magic_link=true&amp;template_id=OTJIR2CRKUD6&amp;template_variant_id=OTVPXN5JGTYRX" target="_blank">Politico</a>&nbsp;and other reports. Biden, at the time, remained&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/NewsHour/status/1320842408549093378" target="_blank">opposed</a>&nbsp;to changes, including justice term limits.<h2>Immunity ruling</h2>When Trump was&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/fueled-lies-trump-charged-seeking-overturn-2020-election-6" target="_blank">charged</a>&nbsp;with federal fraud and obstruction crimes for his attempts to subvert the 2020 presidential election results, he&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-asks-us-supreme-court-pause-federal-trial-over-presidential-immunity-question" target="_blank">escalated</a>&nbsp;his appeal for presidential immunity all the way to the Supreme Court.On July 1, the justices issued a 6-3&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf" target="_blank">opinion</a>&nbsp;granting former presidents criminal immunity for “core constitutional” duties and presumptive immunity for actions on the “outer perimeter” of official duties, but none for unofficial, personal acts.Two of the justices who joined the conservative majority ruling — Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — were Trump appointees. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, also appointed during Trump’s time in the Oval Office, joined them, concurring in part.Trump’s case was delayed for the better part of 2024, tied up in the high court process as he campaigned for a second presidency. The delay ultimately closed the door on a trial before November’s election.The high-profile case not only highlighted the fact that Trump was being judged by his own appointees, but also that two other justices had been recently exposed in ethics scandals involving Republican donors and appearing to show support for Trump’s false claims that he won the 2020 election.In April 2023, ProPublica&nbsp;<a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow" target="_blank">uncovered</a>&nbsp;that Justice Clarence Thomas had been accepting luxury travel and other big ticket gifts from Republican billionaire donor Harlan Crow.In May of this year, the New York Times&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/us/justice-alito-upside-down-flag.html" target="_blank">published</a>&nbsp;photos of an upside-down American flag flying outside the home of Justice Samuel Alito following the violent riot by Trump supporters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The upside-down flag, a general symbol of protest, had been adopted by Trump supporters who believed the 2020 election was stolen.All parties have denied any wrongdoing, and Alito&nbsp;<a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Letter%20from%20Justice%20Alito%20to%20Senators%20Durbin%20and%20Whitehouse.pdf" target="_blank">declined</a>&nbsp;to recuse himself from Trump’s 2020 election subversion case, and another&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/divided-us-supreme-court-wrestles-case-pennsylvania-man-who-joined-jan-6-mob" target="_blank">case</a>&nbsp;brought by a Jan. 6 defendant.<h2>The call for a new ethics code</h2>While the Thomas and Alito scandals attracted the most attention, observers of the court say many of the justices’ actions raise ethics questions.Gabe Roth, founder of the nonpartisan nonprofit Fix the Court, said “no justice has totally behaved ethically.”Roth cited transgressions by both conservative and liberal justices: socializing with litigants who argue before the court, the use of government resources to promote a personal book and instances of justices not recusing themselves from cases in which they appear to have a stake.“It hasn’t been to the scale of the things that ProPublica uncovered, but no justice is fully pure when it comes to ethics issues, which is not to say that they’re all corrupt or they’re all compromised by any means. It’s just more, to me, a fact that the whole institution needs to focus more on ethical leadership,” Roth said.ProPublica&nbsp;<a href="https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/propublica-work-joshua-kaplan-justin-elliott-brett-murphy-alex-mierjeski-and-kirsten-berg" target="_blank">published</a>&nbsp;numerous stories in 2023 detailing gifts Thomas never disclosed, as well as a luxury fishing expedition Alito took with a Republican billionaire who argued before the court.The Supreme Court currently polices itself with its own&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf" target="_blank">code</a>&nbsp;of conduct and maintains justices already follow rules that apply to lower federal judges.Congressional Democrats have introduced several bills aiming to impose ethics rules on the justices and limit life-time appointments, for example to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4423/text?s=1&amp;r=1&amp;q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22supreme+court+term+limits%22%7D" target="_blank">18 years</a>.A bill led by Senate Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/ethics-rules-supreme-court-justices-approved-party-line-vote-us-senate-panel" target="_blank">passed</a>&nbsp;the Democratic-led Senate Committee on the Judiciary in July 2023.The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/359/text?s=1&amp;r=4&amp;q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22supreme+court+ethics%22%5D%7D" target="_blank">legislation</a>&nbsp;aimed to mandate an enforceable ethics code, tighten recusal and gift disclosure requirements, and establish a complaints process similar to that of the lower courts.An&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1djxXNlOjOkGZ" target="_blank">attempt</a>&nbsp;at unanimous consent passage on the Senate floor in June was blocked by Senate Judiciary’s top Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.“Let’s be clear, this is not about improving the court, this is about undermining the court,” Graham said on the floor.Roth said no matter who wins the presidency and which party takes control of the Senate, the longtime fight for an ethics overhaul and term limits at the high court will continue — and that it shouldn’t be partisan.“If they’re done right, it doesn’t favor one party or another or one ideology or another. It’s a bit weird that one side is saying they don’t love ethics right now,” Roth continued. “I don’t get it.”

Reforms at the U.S. Supreme Court: Where do Harris and Trump stand?

GOP’s two-thirds majorities in House, Senate important on veto overrides

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/tim-carpenter/">TIM CARPENTER</a> <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/">Kansas Reflector</a>

TOPEKA — Gov. Laura Kelly expressed optimism a group of quality Democratic candidates and influence of her $2 million political action committee would break in the Nov. 5 election the partisan supermajorities held by Republicans in the both the House and Senate.

Democrats’ priority in this election cycle is picking up a total of five seats in the Legislature to end the GOP’s two-thirds advantage. The GOP supermajorities have been a thorn in the Democratic governor’s side whether the Legislature was voting on individual bills or attempted overrides of Kelly’s vetoes.

“I do think that we will get the two seats that we need in the House and the three that we need in the Senate. Would I like more? Sure, yeah,” Kelly said for the Kansas Reflector podcast.

“I do know that we have&nbsp;really superb candidates running in a lot of our targeted races. Many of them are based in Johnson County, and I think the road to breaking the supermajority will go through Johnson County,” the governor said.

The House is divided among 85 Republicans and 40 Democrats. A two-thirds majority in the House equals 84, meaning Democrats must snatch two seats from Republicans to move the partisan split below the supermajority threshold. Republicans have led the House with a supermajority since 2010.

House Speaker Dan Hawkins, a Wichita Republican, said the Election Day clash over the supermajority was nothing new. He anticipated the GOP would hold onto their House seats and possibly knock off a couple Democrats to pad their margin heading into the 2025 legislative session.

Over in the Senate, there are 29 Republicans and 11 Democrats. A two-thirds majority would be 27, so Democrats set their sights on claiming three seats. Republicans have operated with a Senate supermajority since the election of 1992.

Kelly, who served in the Kansas Senate and is halfway through her second term as governor, said outcome of 2024 legislative elections would color her final two years in office.

“We’ve really been able to get a whole lot of things done, but there are other things that we’ve got to get done if Kansas is going to continue to move forward,” Kelly said. “If we don’t break the supermajority, then the Legislature is going to continue to pass bad bills that impact our ability in Kansas to really prosper and grow.”

The large numerical advantage of Republicans has blocked bills tied to medicinal marijuana and expansion of eligibility for Medicaid health benefits, she said.

She said if voters perpetuated GOP supermajorities in Kansas it would embolden Republicans to push for more restrictions on abortion, resume attacks on the LGBTQ community and advance questionable tax reform.

“I need Democrats in those seats now to help sustain vetoes on bad legislation,” Kelly said. “That way we’re more attractive for our own people to stay here …&nbsp;instead of leaving the state&nbsp;and much more attractive to businesses coming in.”

Kelly said the campaign work of Democrats in this election cycle was heightened because a cadre of Republican legislators who occasionally crossed party lines to sustain her vetoes decided not to seek reelection.

“If we break the supermajority, then it will require leadership in both the House and the Senate to work with us and with the Democrat caucus in their respective chambers,” Kelly said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/10/1729533905311.png" alt=" Gov. Laura Kelly predicts voters in the Nov. 5 election will enable Democrats to claim at least two more seats in the Kansas House and three more seats in the Kansas Senate to eliminate the two-thirds supermajority held by Republicans at the Statehouse. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector)" />
 <figcaption> Gov. Laura Kelly predicts voters in the Nov. 5 election will enable Democrats to claim at least two more seats in the Kansas House and three more seats in the Kansas Senate to eliminate the two-thirds supermajority held by Republicans at the Statehouse. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector)</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>GOP’s two-thirds majorities in House, Senate important on veto overrides</h2>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/tim-carpenter/">TIM CARPENTER</a> <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/">Kansas Reflector</a>TOPEKA — Gov. Laura Kelly expressed optimism a group of quality Democratic candidates and influence of her $2 million political action committee would break in the Nov. 5 election the partisan supermajorities held by Republicans in the both the House and Senate.Democrats’ priority in this election cycle is picking up a total of five seats in the Legislature to end the GOP’s two-thirds advantage. The GOP supermajorities have been a thorn in the Democratic governor’s side whether the Legislature was voting on individual bills or attempted overrides of Kelly’s vetoes.“I do think that we will get the two seats that we need in the House and the three that we need in the Senate. Would I like more? Sure, yeah,” Kelly said for the Kansas Reflector podcast.“I do know that we have&nbsp;really superb candidates running in a lot of our targeted races. Many of them are based in Johnson County, and I think the road to breaking the supermajority will go through Johnson County,” the governor said.The House is divided among 85 Republicans and 40 Democrats. A two-thirds majority in the House equals 84, meaning Democrats must snatch two seats from Republicans to move the partisan split below the supermajority threshold. Republicans have led the House with a supermajority since 2010.House Speaker Dan Hawkins, a Wichita Republican, said the Election Day clash over the supermajority was nothing new. He anticipated the GOP would hold onto their House seats and possibly knock off a couple Democrats to pad their margin heading into the 2025 legislative session.Over in the Senate, there are 29 Republicans and 11 Democrats. A two-thirds majority would be 27, so Democrats set their sights on claiming three seats. Republicans have operated with a Senate supermajority since the election of 1992.Kelly, who served in the Kansas Senate and is halfway through her second term as governor, said outcome of 2024 legislative elections would color her final two years in office.“We’ve really been able to get a whole lot of things done, but there are other things that we’ve got to get done if Kansas is going to continue to move forward,” Kelly said. “If we don’t break the supermajority, then the Legislature is going to continue to pass bad bills that impact our ability in Kansas to really prosper and grow.”The large numerical advantage of Republicans has blocked bills tied to medicinal marijuana and expansion of eligibility for Medicaid health benefits, she said.She said if voters perpetuated GOP supermajorities in Kansas it would embolden Republicans to push for more restrictions on abortion, resume attacks on the LGBTQ community and advance questionable tax reform.“I need Democrats in those seats now to help sustain vetoes on bad legislation,” Kelly said. “That way we’re more attractive for our own people to stay here …&nbsp;instead of leaving the state&nbsp;and much more attractive to businesses coming in.”Kelly said the campaign work of Democrats in this election cycle was heightened because a cadre of Republican legislators who occasionally crossed party lines to sustain her vetoes decided not to seek reelection.“If we break the supermajority, then it will require leadership in both the House and the Senate to work with us and with the Democrat caucus in their respective chambers,” Kelly said.

Gov. Kelly predicts Democrats will break Republican supermajorities in Kansas Legislature

By ALLISON KITE <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/">Kansas Reflector</a>

The largest electric utility in Kansas and western Missouri will add two natural gas plants by the end of 2030, the company announced Monday.

Evergy, which serves 1.6 million customers in the two states, plans to&nbsp;<a href="https://investors.evergy.com/news-releases/news-release-details/evergy-announces-two-new-705-mw-high-efficiency-natural-gas" target="_blank">build combined-cycle natural gas plants</a>&nbsp;— each with a 705-megawatt capacity — in two Kansas counties in 2029 and 2030, respectively.

David Campbell, Evergy’s CEO and chairman, said at a news conference in Hutchinson, Kansas, that the plants would “help maintain a diverse energy mix for our state,” ensuring “reliable, affordable, sustainable energy.”

“They’re flexible resources that can ramp production up and ramp production down based on the needs of the grid,” Campbell said, “so they pair very well with Kansas’ abundant renewable generation resources.”

Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, lauded the announcement at the Hutchinson news conference, saying the construction of the plants would create 500 construction jobs and 165 permanent jobs. She said the plants would ensure reliable energy, including in emergencies or periods of high demand, like hot summer days.

“As Kansas continues to transition to more sustainable energy, we’re doing it responsibly,” Kelly said. “These plants are much cleaner than traditional coal plants.”

<a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/natural-gas-and-the-environment.php" target="_blank">According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration</a>, burning natural gas to create electricity produces less carbon dioxide than coal. But natural gas leaks release its primary component, methane, into the atmosphere, accounting for more than one-third of U.S. methane emissions. Methane is a greenhouse gas 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The announcement marks an increasing reliance on natural gas generation by Evergy.

In its long-range plan filed with regulators in 2022, Evergy planned to exclusively add wind and solar facilities over the coming decade.&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2023/06/16/evergy-slashes-planned-renewable-energy-additions-proposes-more-natural-gas/" target="_blank">A year later, it scaled back</a>&nbsp;those planned renewable energy facilities, forecasted plans to add natural gas plants and delayed the retirement of the Lawrence coal plant.

<a href="https://investors.evergy.com/2024IRPUpdate" target="_blank">Evergy’s latest update</a>, filed earlier this year, almost doubles the amount of natural gas generation the utility will add between now and the early 2030s. At the same time, it increased planned wind and solar additions compared to last year’s plan.

Zack Pistora, a lobbyist for the environmental nonprofit Sierra Club, questioned whether Evergy would be able to achieve its goals to reduce emissions given its planned investments in natural gas generation.

“I don’t know how a utility can claim that it’s affordable, reliable or sustainable,” he said, noting that gas prices can be volatile and natural gas outages contributed to rolling blackouts the Midwest experienced in 2021.

Beyond that, he said, burning gas is harmful to the environment.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/10/1729533611500.jpeg" alt="Hutchinson/Reno County Chamber of Commerce CEO Debra Teufel speaks to the crowd assembled at the Evergy announcement on Monday at the 1861 Club on the Kansas State Fairgrounds on October 21, 2024. Photo by Nick Gosnell." />
 <figcaption>Hutchinson/Reno County Chamber of Commerce CEO Debra Teufel speaks to the crowd assembled at the Evergy announcement on Monday at the 1861 Club on the Kansas State Fairgrounds on October 21, 2024. Photo by Nick Gosnell.</figcaption>
 </figure>By ALLISON KITE <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/">Kansas Reflector</a>The largest electric utility in Kansas and western Missouri will add two natural gas plants by the end of 2030, the company announced Monday.Evergy, which serves 1.6 million customers in the two states, plans to&nbsp;<a href="https://investors.evergy.com/news-releases/news-release-details/evergy-announces-two-new-705-mw-high-efficiency-natural-gas" target="_blank">build combined-cycle natural gas plants</a>&nbsp;— each with a 705-megawatt capacity — in two Kansas counties in 2029 and 2030, respectively.David Campbell, Evergy’s CEO and chairman, said at a news conference in Hutchinson, Kansas, that the plants would “help maintain a diverse energy mix for our state,” ensuring “reliable, affordable, sustainable energy.”“They’re flexible resources that can ramp production up and ramp production down based on the needs of the grid,” Campbell said, “so they pair very well with Kansas’ abundant renewable generation resources.”Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, lauded the announcement at the Hutchinson news conference, saying the construction of the plants would create 500 construction jobs and 165 permanent jobs. She said the plants would ensure reliable energy, including in emergencies or periods of high demand, like hot summer days.“As Kansas continues to transition to more sustainable energy, we’re doing it responsibly,” Kelly said. “These plants are much cleaner than traditional coal plants.”<a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/natural-gas-and-the-environment.php" target="_blank">According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration</a>, burning natural gas to create electricity produces less carbon dioxide than coal. But natural gas leaks release its primary component, methane, into the atmosphere, accounting for more than one-third of U.S. methane emissions. Methane is a greenhouse gas 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.The announcement marks an increasing reliance on natural gas generation by Evergy.In its long-range plan filed with regulators in 2022, Evergy planned to exclusively add wind and solar facilities over the coming decade.&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2023/06/16/evergy-slashes-planned-renewable-energy-additions-proposes-more-natural-gas/" target="_blank">A year later, it scaled back</a>&nbsp;those planned renewable energy facilities, forecasted plans to add natural gas plants and delayed the retirement of the Lawrence coal plant.<a href="https://investors.evergy.com/2024IRPUpdate" target="_blank">Evergy’s latest update</a>, filed earlier this year, almost doubles the amount of natural gas generation the utility will add between now and the early 2030s. At the same time, it increased planned wind and solar additions compared to last year’s plan.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/10/1729533986696.png" alt="The plant site for the new Evergy plant is near South Hutchinson in Reno County. Graphic courtesy Evergy." />
 <figcaption>The plant site for the new Evergy plant is near South Hutchinson in Reno County. Graphic courtesy Evergy.</figcaption>
 </figure>Zack Pistora, a lobbyist for the environmental nonprofit Sierra Club, questioned whether Evergy would be able to achieve its goals to reduce emissions given its planned investments in natural gas generation.“I don’t know how a utility can claim that it’s affordable, reliable or sustainable,” he said, noting that gas prices can be volatile and natural gas outages contributed to rolling blackouts the Midwest experienced in 2021.Beyond that, he said, burning gas is harmful to the environment.Video of the press event is below.<div><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/y_sGnE26DzQ?si=_qHVqdwMkTDq5EQE" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>

Evergy plans to build two new natural gas plants in Kansas

A Kansas federal judge decided his court did not have jurisdiction in the case brought by Denton Loudermill of Olathe against state Sens. Rick Brattin, Denny Hoskins and Nick Schroer over social media messages accusing him of being a shooter and an ‘illegal alien’

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/rudi-keller/">RUDI KELLER</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>

A federal judge on Monday&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/04/three-missouri-state-senators-sued-for-defamation-over-posts-about-chiefs-parade-shooting/">dismissed defamation lawsuits</a>&nbsp;against three Missouri state senators who made social media posts incorrectly identifying a Kansas man as an undocumented immigrant and the shooter at the Kansas City Chiefs’ Super Bowl victory celebration.

Denton Loudermill,&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/02/29/wrongly-accused-kansas-city-shooting-defamation-missouri/">the plaintiff in the case</a>, had not shown that the Kansas federal court where he filed the lawsuit is the right one, U.S. District Judge John Broomes ruled. In the eight-page decision, almost identical for each case except for changing names, Broomes ruled that Republican state Sens. Rick Brattin of Harrisonville, Denny Hoskins, of Warrensburg, and Nick Schroer, of Defiance, had shown they had not intended to target Kansas with their posts and therefore should not be sued in a Kansas court.

The decision came just about a month after&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wbir.com/article/news/local/judge-dismisses-kansas-mans-defamation-lawsuit-against-burchett-lawyer-vows-to-file-it-again-in-dc/51-5d03f6f3-3b1f-425c-a12a-47737151280a" target="_blank">Broomes dismissed</a>&nbsp;Loudermill’s lawsuit&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/25/kansas-city-shooting-lawsuit-tennessee-defamation/">against U.S. Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee</a>&nbsp;for defamatory social media posts. Broomes gave the same reasons for dismissing the case against the three senators that he did in dismissing the lawsuit against Burchett.

The shooting at the end of the victory celebration left one person dead and at least&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/10/17/kansas-city-super-bowl-rally-shooting-victims-pick-up-pieces-but-gun-violence-haunts-their-lives/">24 people injured</a>.

Just because a post on the internet can be read in a particular location does not mean that location can claim jurisdiction over the person who made the post, Broomes wrote, quoting appeals court precedent.

“Plaintiff has failed to put forth any evidence from which this court could find that defendant ‘purposefully directed [its] activities at residents of the forum, and the litigation results&nbsp;from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities,’” Broomes wrote, again quoting another case.

Broomes declined to transfer the case to the Western District of Missouri, which includes the location of the victory celebration and the Missouri Capitol Building in Jefferson City.

The cases are not dead, Arthur Benson, attorney for Loudermill, said in an email to The Independent.

“They will be re-filed soon in Missouri,” he said, declining to give any more information.

In the defense provided to the three senators&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/02/missouri-ag-will-defend-senators-sued-for-defamation-over-posts-about-chiefs-parade-shooting/">by Attorney General Andrew Bailey</a>, they claimed they wrote the social media posts “while … engaged in … regular duties as a Missouri State Senator in Cole County, Missouri,” Broomes noted.

Broomes did not rule on the claims Brattin, Hoskins and Schroer made that they were immune from being sued for their statements because of their official positions.

Bailey’s office, in a statement, called the decision a victory for the state maintaining jurisdiction over cases involving Missourians.

“Questions of Missouri law belong in Missouri courts, not in remote courts in other states,” spokeswoman Madeline Sieren wrote in an email. “We have said that from Day One. Missourians should rest assured that Attorney General Bailey will always follow the law, even when it’s not easy.”&nbsp;

Bailey’s participation in the case generated its own dispute. In a May letter to the commissioner of the Office of Administration, the state agency that certifies payments from Missouri’s legal expense fund,&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/20/parson-orders-state-agency-not-to-pay-legal-expenses-for-legislators-facing-defamation-suit/">Gov. Mike Parson wrote</a>&nbsp;that no payments related to the lawsuits should be certified “without my approval or a court order.”

“I cannot justify money spent in this way,” Parson wrote.

Bailey was protecting a legitimate state interest, Sieren said Monday.

“The state has an interest in ensuring remote courts in other states cannot answer questions of Missouri law,” she said.

The lawsuits grew out of social media posts made soon after shooting erupted after the Feb. 14 Super Bowl victory parade and rally at Union Station in Kansas City. Loudermill, who was born in Kansas and lives there now, was detained briefly because he was too slow to leave the area of the shooting, he told The Independent earlier this year.

A photo of him, seated, with his hands restrained behind his back, was posted on X, formally known as Twitter, by an account with the name Deep Truth Intel. That post incorrectly identified him with a name associated with misinformation&nbsp;<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68353305" target="_blank">posted after other shootings</a>&nbsp;and said he was an undocumented immigrant.

Soon after that initial social media post, the Missouri Freedom Caucus, Hoskins, Brattin, Schroer and Burchett posted their own versions, some with the photo, some without.

“These are 3 people arrested at the parade…at least one of those arrested is an illegal immigrant. CLOSE OUR BORDERS!” the Missouri Freedom Caucus posted.&nbsp;

The post was deleted and the Missouri Freedom Caucus also sought to retract its mistake, linking to a KMBC post about Loudermill’s effort to clear his name.

“Denton is an Olathe native, a father of three &amp; a proud @Chiefs fan,” the post states. “He’s not a mass shooter. Images of him being detained for being intoxicated &amp; not moving away from the crime scene at the Chiefs rally have spread online. He just wants to clear his name.”

Hoskins’ version shared a screenshot of the initial anonymous post and blamed President Joe Biden and political leaders of Kansas City for making the shooting possible.

Brattin’s first post linking Loudermill to the shooting, since deleted, demanded “#POTUS CLOSE THE BORDER” and incorporated the deleted anonymous post that kicked everything off.

Schroer was the least certain post about the immigration and arrest status of Loudermill among the three.

Schroer’s post included a link to one from Burchett stating, over Loudermill’s photo, that “One of the Kansas City Chiefs victory parade shooters has been identified as an illegal Alien.”

“Can we get any confirmation or denial of this from local officials or law enforcement?” Schroer wrote. “I’ve been sent videos or stills showing at least 6 different people arrested from yesterday but officially told only 3 still in custody. The people deserve answers.”

Brattin did not respond immediately to a request for comment on the decision.&nbsp;

Hoskins, the Republican nominee for secretary of state, said he was pleased by the decision and now wants to see the people&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/chiefs-super-bowl-shooting-kansas-city-parade-57662b493b2d987288dabca4bc5fd6f1" target="_blank">charged with the shootings</a>&nbsp;brought to trial.

“I will continue to pray for the innocent victims of the Kansas City parade shooting,” Hoskins said.

Schroer said he sees the decision as vindication and that he is considering legal action for defamation against media outlets.

“I am glad that the rule of law has been maintained and these frivolous lawsuits targeting conservative Senators were dismissed,” Schroer said. “Lawmakers absolutely should have the ability to question the validity of claims regarding whether or not criminals murdering our constituents are legal citizens.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1718363839545.png" alt="A federal judge on Monday dismissed a defamation lawsuit against state Sens. Rick Brattin, center, speaking,&nbsp;Denny Hoskins, left, and Nick Schroer, second from left, over social media posts about the Kansas City Chiefs victory celebration shooting.(Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent)." />
 <figcaption>A federal judge on Monday dismissed a defamation lawsuit against state Sens. Rick Brattin, center, speaking,&nbsp;Denny Hoskins, left, and Nick Schroer, second from left, over social media posts about the Kansas City Chiefs victory celebration shooting.(Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>A Kansas federal judge decided his court did not have jurisdiction in the case brought by Denton Loudermill of Olathe against state Sens. Rick Brattin, Denny Hoskins and Nick Schroer over social media messages accusing him of being a shooter and an ‘illegal alien’</h2>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/rudi-keller/">RUDI KELLER</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>A federal judge on Monday&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/04/04/three-missouri-state-senators-sued-for-defamation-over-posts-about-chiefs-parade-shooting/">dismissed defamation lawsuits</a>&nbsp;against three Missouri state senators who made social media posts incorrectly identifying a Kansas man as an undocumented immigrant and the shooter at the Kansas City Chiefs’ Super Bowl victory celebration.Denton Loudermill,&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/02/29/wrongly-accused-kansas-city-shooting-defamation-missouri/">the plaintiff in the case</a>, had not shown that the Kansas federal court where he filed the lawsuit is the right one, U.S. District Judge John Broomes ruled. In the eight-page decision, almost identical for each case except for changing names, Broomes ruled that Republican state Sens. Rick Brattin of Harrisonville, Denny Hoskins, of Warrensburg, and Nick Schroer, of Defiance, had shown they had not intended to target Kansas with their posts and therefore should not be sued in a Kansas court.The decision came just about a month after&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wbir.com/article/news/local/judge-dismisses-kansas-mans-defamation-lawsuit-against-burchett-lawyer-vows-to-file-it-again-in-dc/51-5d03f6f3-3b1f-425c-a12a-47737151280a" target="_blank">Broomes dismissed</a>&nbsp;Loudermill’s lawsuit&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/25/kansas-city-shooting-lawsuit-tennessee-defamation/">against U.S. Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee</a>&nbsp;for defamatory social media posts. Broomes gave the same reasons for dismissing the case against the three senators that he did in dismissing the lawsuit against Burchett.The shooting at the end of the victory celebration left one person dead and at least&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/10/17/kansas-city-super-bowl-rally-shooting-victims-pick-up-pieces-but-gun-violence-haunts-their-lives/">24 people injured</a>.Just because a post on the internet can be read in a particular location does not mean that location can claim jurisdiction over the person who made the post, Broomes wrote, quoting appeals court precedent.“Plaintiff has failed to put forth any evidence from which this court could find that defendant ‘purposefully directed [its] activities at residents of the forum, and the litigation results&nbsp;from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities,’” Broomes wrote, again quoting another case.Broomes declined to transfer the case to the Western District of Missouri, which includes the location of the victory celebration and the Missouri Capitol Building in Jefferson City.The cases are not dead, Arthur Benson, attorney for Loudermill, said in an email to The Independent.“They will be re-filed soon in Missouri,” he said, declining to give any more information.In the defense provided to the three senators&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/02/missouri-ag-will-defend-senators-sued-for-defamation-over-posts-about-chiefs-parade-shooting/">by Attorney General Andrew Bailey</a>, they claimed they wrote the social media posts “while … engaged in … regular duties as a Missouri State Senator in Cole County, Missouri,” Broomes noted.Broomes did not rule on the claims Brattin, Hoskins and Schroer made that they were immune from being sued for their statements because of their official positions.Bailey’s office, in a statement, called the decision a victory for the state maintaining jurisdiction over cases involving Missourians.“Questions of Missouri law belong in Missouri courts, not in remote courts in other states,” spokeswoman Madeline Sieren wrote in an email. “We have said that from Day One. Missourians should rest assured that Attorney General Bailey will always follow the law, even when it’s not easy.”&nbsp;Bailey’s participation in the case generated its own dispute. In a May letter to the commissioner of the Office of Administration, the state agency that certifies payments from Missouri’s legal expense fund,&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/20/parson-orders-state-agency-not-to-pay-legal-expenses-for-legislators-facing-defamation-suit/">Gov. Mike Parson wrote</a>&nbsp;that no payments related to the lawsuits should be certified “without my approval or a court order.”“I cannot justify money spent in this way,” Parson wrote.Bailey was protecting a legitimate state interest, Sieren said Monday.“The state has an interest in ensuring remote courts in other states cannot answer questions of Missouri law,” she said.The lawsuits grew out of social media posts made soon after shooting erupted after the Feb. 14 Super Bowl victory parade and rally at Union Station in Kansas City. Loudermill, who was born in Kansas and lives there now, was detained briefly because he was too slow to leave the area of the shooting, he told The Independent earlier this year.A photo of him, seated, with his hands restrained behind his back, was posted on X, formally known as Twitter, by an account with the name Deep Truth Intel. That post incorrectly identified him with a name associated with misinformation&nbsp;<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68353305" target="_blank">posted after other shootings</a>&nbsp;and said he was an undocumented immigrant.Soon after that initial social media post, the Missouri Freedom Caucus, Hoskins, Brattin, Schroer and Burchett posted their own versions, some with the photo, some without.“These are 3 people arrested at the parade…at least one of those arrested is an illegal immigrant. CLOSE OUR BORDERS!” the Missouri Freedom Caucus posted.&nbsp;The post was deleted and the Missouri Freedom Caucus also sought to retract its mistake, linking to a KMBC post about Loudermill’s effort to clear his name.“Denton is an Olathe native, a father of three &amp; a proud @Chiefs fan,” the post states. “He’s not a mass shooter. Images of him being detained for being intoxicated &amp; not moving away from the crime scene at the Chiefs rally have spread online. He just wants to clear his name.”Hoskins’ version shared a screenshot of the initial anonymous post and blamed President Joe Biden and political leaders of Kansas City for making the shooting possible.Brattin’s first post linking Loudermill to the shooting, since deleted, demanded “#POTUS CLOSE THE BORDER” and incorporated the deleted anonymous post that kicked everything off.Schroer was the least certain post about the immigration and arrest status of Loudermill among the three.Schroer’s post included a link to one from Burchett stating, over Loudermill’s photo, that “One of the Kansas City Chiefs victory parade shooters has been identified as an illegal Alien.”“Can we get any confirmation or denial of this from local officials or law enforcement?” Schroer wrote. “I’ve been sent videos or stills showing at least 6 different people arrested from yesterday but officially told only 3 still in custody. The people deserve answers.”Brattin did not respond immediately to a request for comment on the decision.&nbsp;Hoskins, the Republican nominee for secretary of state, said he was pleased by the decision and now wants to see the people&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/chiefs-super-bowl-shooting-kansas-city-parade-57662b493b2d987288dabca4bc5fd6f1" target="_blank">charged with the shootings</a>&nbsp;brought to trial.“I will continue to pray for the innocent victims of the Kansas City parade shooting,” Hoskins said.Schroer said he sees the decision as vindication and that he is considering legal action for defamation against media outlets.“I am glad that the rule of law has been maintained and these frivolous lawsuits targeting conservative Senators were dismissed,” Schroer said. “Lawmakers absolutely should have the ability to question the validity of claims regarding whether or not criminals murdering our constituents are legal citizens.”

Judge dismisses case against Mo. senators over Chiefs parade shooting posts

OSAGE COUNTY—A Kansas school district superintendent is now on administrative leave following an arrest.

Just before 5p.m. Friday, police arrested 53-year-old Bradley Marcotte, the superintendent of school at USD 421 in Lyndon, according to online jail records.

He was jailed on requested charges of child endangerment and interference with a law enforcement officer.

&nbsp;Just after 7p.m. Friday, he met the requirement of a $2,500 bond and was released.

On Monday, USD 421 reported in a media release signed by school board president Bryant Derley,&nbsp;&nbsp;"The school board voted to place Marcotte on administrative leave. We want to thank our staff for acting quickly and following safety procedures to protect students and keep them out of harm’s way."&nbsp; Law enforcement have not released details on specifics of what prompted the arrest.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/10/1729541994425.png" alt="Marcotte photo Osage County" />
 <figcaption>Marcotte photo Osage County</figcaption>
 </figure>OSAGE COUNTY—A Kansas school district superintendent is now on administrative leave following an arrest.Just before 5p.m. Friday, police arrested 53-year-old Bradley Marcotte, the superintendent of school at USD 421 in Lyndon, according to online jail records.He was jailed on requested charges of child endangerment and interference with a law enforcement officer.&nbsp;Just after 7p.m. Friday, he met the requirement of a $2,500 bond and was released.On Monday, USD 421 reported in a media release signed by school board president Bryant Derley,&nbsp;&nbsp;"The school board voted to place Marcotte on administrative leave. We want to thank our staff for acting quickly and following safety procedures to protect students and keep them out of harm’s way."&nbsp; Law enforcement have not released details on specifics of what prompted the arrest.

Kan. school district superintendent placed on leave after arrest

Hutchinson, KAN. –&nbsp;Hutchinson Correctional Facility (HCF) resident Kevyn Lopez, 26, died Monday, according to a media release from the Kansas Department of Corrections.

Lopez was found unresponsive in his cell Monday morning. Staff began life-saving measures immediately and continued after emergency medical services arrived but were unsuccessful. The cause of death is pending the results of an independent autopsy.

Lopez was serving a 94-month sentence for convictions of voluntary manslaughter in Wyandotte County, Kansas.

Per protocol, when a resident dies in the custody of the Kansas Department of Corrections, the death is under investigation by the agency and the Kansas Bureau of Investigation. The investigation is ongoing.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/10/1729524765329.png" alt="Lopez photo Wyandotte Co." />
 <figcaption>Lopez photo Wyandotte Co.</figcaption>
 </figure>Hutchinson, KAN. –&nbsp;Hutchinson Correctional Facility (HCF) resident Kevyn Lopez, 26, died Monday, according to a media release from the Kansas Department of Corrections.Lopez was found unresponsive in his cell Monday morning. Staff began life-saving measures immediately and continued after emergency medical services arrived but were unsuccessful. The cause of death is pending the results of an independent autopsy.Lopez was serving a 94-month sentence for convictions of voluntary manslaughter in Wyandotte County, Kansas.Per protocol, when a resident dies in the custody of the Kansas Department of Corrections, the death is under investigation by the agency and the Kansas Bureau of Investigation. The investigation is ongoing.

Kbct