Some of his voters have buyers’ remorse. Mario Guerrero, who owns a construction firm and heads the South Texas Builders’ Association, voted for Mr Trump three times. But today tariffs have increased his input costs, ice raids have reduced his labour force, petrol prices have eaten into his budget and all this, combined with rising costs, means that fewer people can afford the homes he builds. Under Joe Biden, the border, just half an hour’s drive from Edinburg, was chaotic, and Mr Guerrero welcomed Mr Trump’s vow to control it and get the bad guys out. But, he says, “When I would hear that the rapists and the murderers were gonna be taken out, I never thought that you were gonna go and pick up Juan that does cabinets, that has a family here, that has two sons in the air force.” An improved showing for Democrats in the rgv would not mean Latinos are coming “home”, argues Mike Madrid, a political strategist and author of “The Latino Century”. They “are moving away from both parties, [and] the same reasons these voters turned against the Democratic Party is why they’re now moving away from Republicans”. Yet there are, he suggests, lessons for the party here. First, he says, “start moving toward the Latino working-class base instead of holding onto false hopes of recapturing the white working class in the rustbelt…The future relevance of the Democratic Party is the sunbelt.” Second, be opportunistic and unconventional: if your opponent sniffs that you’re nothing more than a quinceañera singer, sing at as many as will have you. Finally, it really helps to be famous. Unlike most first-time candidates, Mr Pulido has no problems with name recognition. The tendency of Democrats to defend institutions often makes them seem like rule-following scolds. They could use a few more candidates who know their way around a guitar, a ballad and a gun. ■ Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important political news, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.
This article was downloaded by zlibrary from https://www.economist.com//united-states/2026/05/11/lessons-for-democrats-from-a- candidate-who-sings-and-shoots
New York looks set to lower a big barrier to building Sex and the environmental-review process May 14th 2026 GETTING A NEW building project through New York’s state environmental approvals can feel like a bureaucratic game of snakes and ladders. Even though projects are also signed off locally, the state process requires an analysis of their effects. After about two years of study, if a builder is lucky, he can hop up a ladder towards the end of the game. Others must go through a more-exacting report, moving one square for a public hearing and then another for each of the 20 technical analyses that must be done in New York City. This takes closer to three years. If the plan changes in that time, the builder lands on a snake (or a chute, in the American version) and goes back to the start. A lawsuit can create a whole second round.
Now New York is on the brink of throwing away the game. The state is set to pass the first big reform of its environmental reviews for housing in 50 years. Even though many developments are found to have little environmental impact, the convoluted process slows building and becomes a blocking tool for would-be-neighbours. Scrapping it “is going to be a real transformational moment” boasts Kathy Hochul, New York’s governor. But the Empire State is not alone: in an effort to get building, Democratic states across the country are rethinking their environmental reviews. In 2024 New York state ranked fifth in the nation for cost burdens for housing, with more than a third of residents spending more than 30% of their household income on it. The state’s population has fallen, and it is projected to lose one or two congressional seats in the next reapportionment in 2030. For Ms Hochul, this is a crisis. “We’re losing residents to neighbouring states that have more ambition and willingness to not be thwarted by the NIMBY culture,” she says, referring to Not In My Backyard campaigners. Her solution is to reform the 1975 law that governs environmental review in the state. Although theoretically it is just a fact-finding exercise, any project requiring a special permit or a zoning change must go through the painstaking process. The state reckons it costs $82,000 per unit of housing in New York City and has little environmental benefit. A change to the state budget would scrap the reviews for projects of up to 500 units in the busiest parts of New York City and 300 units in other urban areas in the state, as long as they are on a plot of previously developed land. Although the final language is yet to be seen, wonks are jubilant. “This is a major step forward,” says Josh Berman of the Regional Plan Association, a local think-tank. “It allows municipalities that want to build to go forward and actually build.” “It’s a big deal,” echoes Steven Fulop, the head of the Partnership for NYC, a business group. If the final legislation is as expected, there should be more permits issued by the end of the year, says Carlo Scissura of the NY Building Congress. There are hitches: local governments would keep their say over development, so places that are not keen on new housing would not have to embrace it (Ms Hochul attempted to nudge building in 2023 and was shut down). But advocates cheer how warm the reception for environmental reform was. “It
is really, really notable that we are finally seeing just everyone sing the same tune that we need to build more housing,” says Annemarie Gray of Open New York, a YIMBY (the antithesis of NIMBY) group. Plenty in New York attribute this to Ms Hochul’s vigour. But Democrats across the country have embraced the idea that the party needs to be more friendly to growth. In recent years California, Massachusetts and Washington have all made efforts to reduce the burden of climate reviews. State legislators are “all definitely trading notes”, says Charlie Anderson at Arnold Ventures, a research and advocacy group. “They’re also competitive.” This is a better game than snakes and ladders.■ Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important political news, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters. This article was downloaded by zlibrary from https://www.economist.com//united-states/2026/05/14/new-york-looks-set-to-lower-a- big-barrier-to-building
America’s new counter-terrorism strategy is a partisan polemic It does not seem designed to make the country safer May 14th 2026 Sebastian Gorka, America’s counter-terrorism tsar, is abrasive. Critics of the Iran war are “testicularly challenged”. Journalists are “scumbags” or “punks”. As for terrorists, they must be vapourised into “red mist” and their bodies stacked “like cordwood”. Mr Gorka takes pride in his work. “I pinch myself everyday,” he enthused on a podcast last year. “I’ve been waiting about 25 years for this job.” It should therefore come as little surprise that America’s new counter- terrorism strategy—hailed by Mr Gorka as his “life’s work”—is more polemic than policy. For a magnum opus, it is short: just 16 pages, including covers and pictures. It is also light on detail. The strategy identifies three
“major types of terror groups”: narco-terrorists and transnational gangs; Islamist terrorists; and violent left-wing extremists. It says nothing about threats stemming from the war in Iran or the long-standing menace from right-wing extremists. Described as “apolitical”, the document is anything but. Donald Trump’s name appears dozens of times in a nominally non- partisan memo. “It’s not a strategy,” says Matthew Levitt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “It’s an ideological, political document that fails to analytically assess the counter-terrorism threat.” There is little new inside. The document largely spells out what the Trump administration has already been doing. The priority, it says, is going after drug cartels. For eight months, America’s armed forces have struck alleged “narco-terrorist” boats in the Caribbean and Pacific. To date, it has carried out 57 confirmed strikes, which have killed at least 192 people. The document boasts that sea-borne drug trafficking has decreased by 90%. The campaign’s dubious legality aside, experts say the document betrays a lack of focus. “If every criminal group is also a terrorist group there’s no distinction anymore,” warns Colin Clarke of the Soufan Centre, a non-profit. “It takes finite resources away from fighting actual terrorist organisations.” The government also vows to keep tabs on “legacy Islamist terrorists” like al-Qaeda and ISIS. It boasts of loosening rules of engagement, which has led to a surge in air strikes. In Somalia, for example, strikes since the start of 2025 have risen to 190—a nearly four-fold increase on the Biden years. Some of the strategy’s sharpest barbs are reserved for Europe. The old world has become an “incubator” of terrorism stemming from its “open borders”. It warns the continent must “act now and halt its wilful decline”. Strikingly, the document does not mention the impact of the Iran war. A spate of attacks in recent months, some of which appear to have been inspired by the conflict, have raised questions about America’s counter- terror apparatus. Thousands of federal agents have been dragooned into immigration duty. And in the days before the Iran war began, the FBI fired a dozen staff, including agents who worked in a unit monitoring threats from Iran. “The Iran war is a gaping hole in this document,” points out Mr Clarke. The strategy’s focus on left-wing extremism is similarly hazy. Political killings by left-wing types, such as the murders of Charlie Kirk or Brian
Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, are a real and growing issue. But it is not clear whether these killings actually constitute terrorism. The administration has nonetheless designated amorphous, left-wing militant groups as “terrorist organisations”. Worryingly, violence perpetrated by right-wing extremists has been expunged from the document. “The people in charge are taking something that has traditionally been apolitical and non- ideological and weaponising it for ideological purposes,” laments Mr Levitt. “We’re less safe for it.”■ Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important political news, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters. This article was downloaded by zlibrary from https://www.economist.com//united-states/2026/05/14/americas-new-counter-terrorism- strategy-is-a-partisan-polemic