Listen to this story.Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.
Your browser does not support the <audio> element.
WILLIAM BELKNAP is the only cabinet official in American history to have suffered the indignity of a congressional impeachment. In the case of Belknap, the secretary of war to Ulysses S. Grant, it was richly deserved: to maintain his reputation for enormous, raucous parties and well-dressed wives, the war secretary awarded trade monopolies at a military fort to a friend who gave him generous kickbacks. For “basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain”, the House of Representatives voted to impeach him in 1876.
Nearly 150 years later, Alejandro Mayorkas, the secretary of homeland security, may become the second cabinet official to be impeached—if Republicans were to have their way, that is. Compare the two charge sheets, and the travesty of the latter becomes clear. Mr Mayorkas does not stand accused of grand corruption or treason but of a political crime: he has overseen immigration policy.
It should be noted that there is no chance of Mr Mayorkas actually being ousted from office. Articles of impeachment must first be passed with a majority of the House, which Republicans might even struggle to do because they retain control by the barest of margins. Passing those articles would trigger the spectacle of a trial to be held in the Senate. And the chances of securing a conviction there, which would require a two-thirds majority and so at least 18 Democratic voters, are lower than the odds that Mexico would ever pay for the construction of a border wall. So, why bother at all?
The southern border is indeed in a bad way, as Republicans point out. In December 2023 American immigration authorities reported more than 300,000 encounters with migrants—the most of any month on record. Those who arrive and claim asylum cannot be kept in custody because of a shortage of detention beds and immigration judges; many are released into the country with a court date years into the future, which is sometimes skipped. Even if the severity of the crisis is at its highest level, the problem of illegal migration over the US-Mexico border is decades old. Presidents like Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan struggled with it.
But in their articles of impeachment, the Republicans lay all of the blame at the feet of Mr Mayorkas. “In large part because of his unlawful conduct, millions of aliens have illegally entered the United States on an annual basis with many unlawfully remaining,” they accuse in their first article. The second article says he breached the public trust by testifying to Congress that the border was secure, when, they argue, he should have known that it was not.
On closer inspection, the allegations are even more flimsy than they first appear. One complaint is that Mr Mayorkas overturned the Migration Policy Protocols, put into place by President Donald Trump, requiring asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico while they waited for their cases to be considered. The complaint cites language from a federal appeals court that Mr Mayorkas appears to have ignored. That only looks damning because it omits the fact that the court ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court, which sanctioned the policy change.
Rock and parole
Another gripe is over the administration’s use of “parole authority”, which allows it to grant reprieve from deportation on a case-by-case basis. Republican arguments that this has been applied over-generously (by allowing in 30,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans each month) are certainly plausible. But complaints about governmental inaction do not usually rely on empirical evidence showing increased action. The articles of impeachment, by contrast, argue that Mr Mayorkas has not done enough to curtail the smuggling of fentanyl by pointing to the increasing amounts impounded by the authorities; that he is not doing enough to stop migrants by pointing to increased apprehensions at the border; and that he is not deporting enough illegal migrants by pointing to record-breaking deportation-case backlogs. At their core, the Republican allegations are about competence in office and the appropriate use of executive powers, which are usually addressed through court cases, not impeachment.
The irony is that House Republicans are pursuing this course of action when, on the other side of the Capitol, more serious Senate Republicans are trying to negotiate with Democrats to craft a bill that would alleviate the pressure on the Mexican border. Among the mooted provisions are limits on the president’s parole authority, an increase in the number of border-patrol officers and immigration judges, and tougher criteria for judging whether those seeking asylum actually have credible cases.
The bill matters for more than just the border: Democrats hope that a border deal would placate Republicans enough for them to agree to send more aid to Ukraine as part of a combined spending package. If accomplished, it would be a rare triumph of pragmatism over partisanship. Unsurprisingly, Mr Trump has taken to whipping against any forthcoming border compromise, following the cynical logic that border chaos is better for his election prospects than improvement. Pursuing an impeachment trial to protest about the border, in lieu of the legislation that might actually fix it, would be to prefer empty spectacle over governing. Alas, that seems an apt summary of the House Republicans’ mission statement. ■
Stay on top of American politics with Checks and Balance, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter, which examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.
On July 20, Andy Burnham has been chosen to be the next Prime Minister in UK. The appointment of a new Prime Minister in the United Kingdom often raises questions from people outside the country, especially when no nationwide election has taken place. Many wonder how a new national leader can assume office without voters casting ballots. The answer lies in the UK’s parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the public but is instead chosen based on who commands the confidence of the House of Commons.
How the UK Selects Its Prime Minister
Unlike presidential systems where citizens vote directly for the head of government, the United Kingdom elects Members of Parliament (MPs) during a general election. The political party that secures a majority of seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government, and that party selects its own leader to serve as Prime Minister.
If the leader resigns, becomes unable to continue, or is replaced by their party, the governing party can choose a new leader without triggering a general election. As long as the new leader is able to maintain the confidence of Parliament, they can immediately become Prime Minister after being formally appointed by the monarch.
Why No Election Was Required
A general election is not automatically required every time the office of Prime Minister changes hands. The governing party retains its parliamentary majority because voters elected MPs rather than an individual Prime Minister. If the ruling party chooses a new leader through its internal leadership process, the government continues to operate without interruption.
This constitutional arrangement provides stability and allows the government to continue functioning during periods of political transition. It also avoids the expense and disruption of holding a nationwide election every time party leadership changes.
The King’s Constitutional Role
After a governing party elects a new leader, the monarch invites that individual to form a government. This constitutional step is largely ceremonial and follows long-established conventions. The King appoints the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons, ensuring continuity of government.
Although the monarch formally appoints the Prime Minister, political power rests with Parliament and the elected representatives of the British people.
Could an Election Still Happen?
Yes. A newly appointed Prime Minister has the authority to request a general election if they believe it is politically advantageous or if they seek a stronger public mandate. Parliament can also reach a point where a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons, potentially leading to an election or the formation of a new government.
In many cases, however, a new Prime Minister continues governing until the next scheduled general election.
What This Means for the UK
The UK’s parliamentary democracy is designed to ensure government continuity while respecting the results of the most recent general election. Leadership changes within the governing party do not automatically alter the composition of Parliament, which is why a new Prime Minister can take office without another nationwide vote.
Understanding this process helps explain why political transitions in the United Kingdom can appear different from those in countries with presidential systems. While the Prime Minister may change, the democratic mandate of Parliament remains in place until voters elect a new House of Commons at the next general election.
On July 21, 2026, global economic analysis shifts focus toward a defining structural macroeconomic trend: the massive expansion of public and private capital deployment into high-capacity electrical grid infrastructure. As industrial electrification, automated data center hubs, and renewable energy integration accelerate worldwide, sovereign governments and institutional investors are facing a monumental economic challenge. Updating legacy power grids to meet skyrocketing demand has emerged as a primary driver of long-term capital expenditures and industrial productivity across both developed and emerging market economies.
According to international economic policy updates released this week, grid infrastructure investments are projected to exceed multi-trillion-dollar thresholds over the coming decade. Economic planners caution that without modernized, high-voltage transmission networks, regional manufacturing sectors face severe energy bottlenecks, localized power price volatility, and operational constraints. Consequently, infrastructure spending is rapidly transitioning from passive utility maintenance into a vital component of national economic competitiveness and industrial policy.
The macroeconomic ripple effects of this capital deployment are being felt across global commodity markets and labor networks. High demand for structural industrial inputs—such as copper, aluminum, specialized electrical steel, and high-capacity transformers—has created sustained pricing support for critical material producers. Simultaneously, the specialized technical labor required to manufacture and deploy modern grid hardware is driving wage growth in industrial sectors, adding a complex new layer to central bank disinflation trajectories.
For global policymakers and strategic investors, the economics of energy grid modernization represent a double-edged sword. While massive infrastructure investment boosts short-term gross domestic product (GDP) and strengthens domestic industrial foundations, it requires disciplined fiscal allocation to prevent inflationary crowding-out of private capital. Countries that efficiently streamline grid infrastructure permitting and mobilize private investment will secure lower long-term energy costs, attracting high-tech manufacturing and reinforcing sustainable economic growth.
The international trade architecture entering the second half of 2026 is undergoing a profound structural pivot. As major sovereign economic blocs adjust to the long-term impact of unilateral tariffs and escalating regional subsidies, traditional globalized supply chains are being rapidly replaced by bilateral trade corridors and regional alliance networks. Data released in late July 2026 highlights a significant divergence: while cross-continental freight volumes between non-aligned partners have cooled, intra-regional trade throughout North America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe has surged to record levels. This shift reflects a broader macroeconomic strategy wherein multinational corporations prioritize geopolitical resilience over pure cost minimization.
The primary economic catalyst behind this regionalization is the proliferation of sector-specific tariffs targeting critical industries, notably battery components, clean energy technology, and advanced semiconductor hardware. In response, global manufacturers have adopted multi-tier sourcing models that distribute production across intermediate partner nations before final assembly. While this strategy successfully bypasses primary import duties, it adds structural layers of logistical complexity and administrative oversight. Economists note that while total output remains robust, aggregate production costs have drifted upward, contributing to persistent baseline inflation across major consumer markets.
Simultaneously, currency settlement patterns within these regional blocs are experiencing a notable transformation. Sovereign central banks and commercial institutions are increasingly utilizing localized currency swap lines and digital clearing mechanisms to settle cross-border trade transactions. This transition reduces direct exposure to foreign exchange volatility and mitigates third-party liquidity constraints, further solidifying regional economic cohesion. However, for developing economies situated outside these primary trading alliances, the tightening of international trade networks presents severe challenges, restricting access to key export markets and foreign direct investment.
For corporate strategists and policy analysts navigating late 2026, success requires a thorough understanding of these emerging trade corridors. Organizations must conduct regular risk assessments of their multi-tier supplier networks, model tariff sensitivities under shifting geopolitical scenarios, and invest in real-time supply chain telemetry. As regional economic blocs strengthen their regulatory borders, supply chain agility and compliance fortitude will distinguish market leaders from vulnerable enterprises in the evolving global economy.
Economics4 days ago
Economics5 days ago
Economics4 days ago
Finance6 days ago
Leaders6 days ago
Finance4 days ago
Economics6 days ago
Accounting4 days ago