Le Journal

En Ecosse, un homme de 32 ans a écopé d’une peine de prison de 10 ans après une tentative de meurtre sur un policier avec une tronçonneuse.

La joueuse de tennis, star du Japon et classée 17e mondiale, a attiré tous les regards de mardi 20 janvier à Melbourne, lors de sa rencontre du premier tour remportée contre la Croate Antonia Ruzic. Voile, chapeau,...

By JOSH BOAK, Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump plans to use a key address Wednesday to try to convince Americans he can make housing more affordable, but he’s picked a strange backdrop for the speech: a Swiss mountain town where ski chalets for vacations cost a cool $4.4 million. On the anniversary of his inauguration, Trump is flying to the World Economic Forum in Davos — an annual gathering of the global elite — where he may see many of the billionaires he has surrounded himself with during his first year back in the White House. Related Articles Read what France’s Macron and the head of NATO are saying to Trump behind the scenes Donald Trump thanks you for your attention to these matters in his second term Trump slams UK deal to hand over Chagos Islands after he previously backed it Top EU official questions Trump’s trustworthiness over Greenland tariff threat Trump’s voice in a new Fannie Mae ad is generated by artificial intelligence, with his permission Trump had campaigned on lowering the cost of living, painting himself as a populist while serving fries at a McDonald’s drive-thru. But in office, his public schedules suggest he’s traded the Golden Arches for a gilded age, devoting more time to cavorting with the wealthy than talking directly to his working-class base. “At the end of the day, it’s the investors and billionaires at Davos who have his attention, not the families struggling to afford their bills,” said Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal think tank. Trump’s attention in his first year back has been less on pocketbook issues and more fixed on foreign policy with conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine and Venezuela. He is now bent on acquiring Greenland to the chagrin of European allies — a headline likely to dominate his time in Davos, overshadowing his housing ideas. Trump noted the Europeans’ resistance, telling reporters Monday night, “Let’s put it this way: It’s going to be a very interesting Davos.” The White House has tried to shift Trump’s focus to affordability issues, a response to warning signs in the polls in a year where control of Congress is at stake in midterm elections. About six in 10 U.S. adults now say that Trump has hurt the cost of living, according to the latest survey by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. It’s an issue even among Republicans, who have said Trump’s work on the economy hasn’t lived up to their expectations. Only 16% say Trump has helped “a lot” on making things more affordable, down from 49% in April 2024, when an AP-NORC poll asked Americans the same question about his first term. The president is banking on investment commitments from billionaires and foreign nations to create a jobs boom, even as his broad tariffs have crimped the labor market and spurred inflation. Trump supporters who attend his rallies — which the president resumed last month — are left to trust that Trump’s business ties can eventually help them. This strategy carries political risks. Voters are more interested in the economy they’re experiencing in their own lives than in Trump’s relationships with billionaires, said Frank Luntz, the Republican-affiliated pollster and strategist. “If you’re asking me, ‘Are billionaires popular?’ The answer is no — and they’ve haven’t been for some time,” said Luntz, who last year identified “affordability” as a defining issue for voters. Wooing billionaires instead of the working class Since Trump’s first term in 2017, the wealthiest 0.1% of Americans have seen their wealth increase by $11.98 trillion to $23.46 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve. FILE – President Donald Trump speaks with Elon Musk and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, during the Saudi Investment Forum at the Kennedy Center, Nov. 19, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File) The magnitude of those gains dwarfs what the bottom 50% of households — the majority of the country — received during the same…

Imagine for a moment that you’re a member of Renee Good’s family. You’re mourning her death at the hands of an ICE agent in Minneapolis, and you want justice. So you visit a lawyer to see what can be done. First, you want to help in any criminal investigation of the officer. You’ve got information about Good’s intentions when she protested ICE activities — information you think might be relevant to prosecutors looking into the case. “I’m sorry,” the lawyer replies. “The administration has already declared that the agent did no wrong, and the Justice Department’s civil rights division hasn’t opened an investigation into whether the agent violated Renee’s constitutional rights. “Federal officials are, however, investigating Renee and may investigate her family, so you might need a defense lawyer.” You didn’t have high hopes that the Trump administration would hold anyone accountable, but surely the next administration could? There’s no statute of limitations for murder, right? “I’m sorry,” the lawyer replies. “Given President Trump’s past pardons, I’d say it’s quite possible that he’ll pardon the agent. And once he pardons the agent, he’s beyond the reach of federal law for the shooting.” But there’s state law, right? You’ve seen the mayor of Minneapolis, Jacob Frey, speak out. Tim Walz, the governor, is furious. Murder is still against the law in Minnesota. “I’m sorry,” the lawyer replies, “but there is only a small chance that will work. There is a doctrine called supremacy clause immunity that prohibits state officials from prosecuting federal officers when they’re reasonably acting in their official capacity. It’s not absolute immunity like the administration claims, but it’s still a high hurdle for any prosecution to overcome.” We can still sue the officer, can’t we? Even if the government can’t or won’t prosecute, we’ll still want to hold him liable. “I’m sorry,” the lawyer replies, “but there is almost no chance that will work. There’s a federal statute that gives you the ability to sue state and local officials when they violate your constitutional rights, but there’s no equivalent law granting the right to sue federal officials for the same reasons. “In 1971,” the lawyer continues, “the Supreme Court created a path for plaintiffs to sue federal officials for violations of their constitutional rights. Since then, however, the court has limited the reach of that case, and it is now extremely difficult to sue when the federal government violates your civil rights.” And there you have it — that’s the challenge any citizen faces when he or she tries to hold the federal government responsible for violating the Constitution. The government is defended by a phalanx of immunities and privileges, buttressed by the president’s unchecked pardon power — a vestige of royal authority that should no longer have any place in our constitutional republic. Failing the stress test President Donald Trump is stress-testing American law, and the law is failing the test. The health of the American experiment rests far more on the integrity of any given American president than we realized. We trusted that presidents would impose accountability on the executive branch. We trusted that presidents wouldn’t abuse their pardon power — or, if they did, then Congress could impeach and convict any offenders. And so we manufactured doctrine after doctrine, year after year, that insulated the executive branch from legal accountability. It’s hard to overstate how much this web of immunities — combined with the failure of Congress to step up and fulfill its powerful constitutional role — has made the United States vulnerable to authoritarian abuse. The ancient question: Who will watch the watchers? In Federalist No. 51, James Madison wrote some of the most famous words of the American founding. “If men were angels, no government would be necessary,” Madison wrote. “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be…