ReportWire

Tag: President Donald Trump

  • Appeals Court Blocks Trump Administration From Ending Legal Protections For 600,000 Venezuelans – KXL

    [ad_1]

    SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal appeals court on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s plans to end protections for 600,000 people from Venezuela who have had permission to live and work in the United States, saying that plaintiffs are likely to win their claim that the Republican administration’s actions were unlawful.

    A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court ruling that maintained temporary protected status for Venezuelans while TPS holders challenge actions by Trump’s administration in court.

    The 9th Circuit judges found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had no authority to vacate or set aside a prior extension of temporary protected status because the governing statute written by Congress does not permit it. Then-President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration had extended temporary protected status for people from Venezuela.

    “In enacting the TPS statute, Congress designed a system of temporary status that was predictable, dependable, and insulated from electoral politics,” Judge Kim Wardlaw, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, wrote for the panel. The other two judges on the panel were also nominated by Democratic presidents.

    In an email, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security blasted the decision as more obstruction from “unelected activist” judges.

    “For decades the TPS program has been abused, exploited, and politicized as a de facto amnesty program,” the email read. “While this injunction delays justice and undermines the integrity of our immigration system, Secretary Noem will use every legal option at the Department’s disposal to end this chaos and prioritize the safety of Americans.”

    Congress authorized temporary protected status, or TPS, as part of the Immigration Act of 1990. It allows the secretary of DHS to grant legal immigration status to people fleeing countries experiencing civil strife, environmental disaster or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions” that prevent a safe return to that home country. The terms are for six, 12 and 18 months.

    The appellate judges said the guaranteed time limitations were critical so people could gain employment, find long-term housing and build stability without fear of shifting political winds.

    But in ending the protections soon after Trump took office, Noem said conditions in Venezuela had improved and it was not in the U.S. national interest to allow migrants from there to stay on for what is a temporary program. It’s part of a broader move by Trump’s administration to reduce the number of immigrants who are in the country either without legal documentation or through legal temporary programs.

    U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of San Francisco found in March that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claim that the administration had overstepped its authority in terminating the protections. Chen postponed the terminations, but the Supreme Court reversed him without explanation, which is common in emergency appeals.

    It is unclear what effect Friday’s ruling will have on the estimated 350,000 Venezuelans in the group of 600,000 whose protections expired in April. Their lawyers say some have already been fired from jobs, detained in immigration jails, separated from their U.S. citizen children and even deported.

    Protections for the remaining 250,000 Venezuelans are set to expire Sept. 10.

    “What is really significant now is that the second court unanimously recognized that the trial court got it right,” said Emi MacLean, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Northern California representing plaintiffs.

    She added that while the decision might not benefit immediately those people who have already lost their status or are about to lose their status, Friday’s ruling “should provide a path for the administration’s illegal actions related to Venezuela and TPS to finally be undone.”

    A court declaration provided by plaintiffs showed the turmoil caused by the Trump administration and Supreme Court decision.

    A Washington woman who worked in restaurants was deported in June along with her daughters, 10 years and 15 months old, after ICE officers told her to bring her children to an immigration check-in. The father of the baby, who is a U.S. citizen, remains in the U.S. while the woman tries to figure out what to do.

    Also in June, a FedEx employee appeared in uniform at his required immigration check-in only to be detained, the court declaration states. He slept for about two weeks on a floor, terrified he would be sent to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison. His wife cannot maintain the household on her earnings.

    “I am not a criminal,” he said in the declaration, adding that “immigrants like myself come to the United States to work hard and contribute, and instead our families and lives are being torn apart.”

    Millions of Venezuelans have fled political unrest, mass unemployment and hunger. Their country is mired in a prolonged crisis brought on by years of hyperinflation, political corruption, economic mismanagement and an ineffectual government.

    Attorneys for the U.S. government argued the Homeland Security secretary’s clear and broad authority to make determinations related to the TPS program were not subject to judicial review. They also denied that Noem’s actions were motivated by racial animus.

    But the appellate judges said courts clearly had jurisdiction in cases where the actions were unlawful. They declined to address whether Noem was motivated by racial animus.

    [ad_2]

    Grant McHill

    Source link

  • Appeals Court Finds President Trump’s Sweeping Tariffs Unconstitutional But Leaves Them In Place For Now – KXL

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court is ruling that President Donald Trump had no legal right to impose sweeping tariffs but is leaving in place for now his effort to build a protectionist wall around the American economy.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Friday that Trump wasn’t legally allowed to declare national emergencies and impose import taxes on almost every country on earth, largely upholding a May decision by a specialized federal trade court in New York.

    But the court tossed out a part of that ruling striking down the tariffs immediately, allowing his administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court.

    More about:

    [ad_2]

    Grant McHill

    Source link

  • Trump official lodges new criminal referral against Fed Governor Lisa Cook

    [ad_1]

    (CNN) — A Trump administration housing official has sent a new criminal referral to the Justice Department against Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, as she sues the administration to fight the president’s efforts to fire her.

    The new criminal referral, made late Thursday and revealed in a social media post by Federal Housing Finance Agency director Bill Pulte, alleges Cook identified a property in Cambridge, Massachusetts, as a second home on official documents, but instead used it as an investment property.

    Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor, has filed a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s firing of her earlier this week. A hearing on that suit took place Friday morning.

    The battle over Cook’s job is about more than one position: The nation’s central bank operates independently so that officials can make economic decisions without pressure over political considerations. Trump’s attempts to fire Cook – and to force the bank to cut interest rates – get to the heart of the question about the Fed’s independence and whether Trump’s presidential powers have limits.

    The Fed has been resistant to cutting rates this year, citing Trump’s tariffs and their potential to raise inflation. Trump, however, has repeatedly demanded lower borrowing costs, often lobbing personal insults in the process.

    Cook has not been charged with any crimes.

    At the Friday hearing on her civil suit, her attorney, Abbe Lowell argued the mortgage fraud allegations are a pretext because of Trump’s political ire with the Fed for not lowering interest rates.

    In a statement to CNN, Lowell denied there was any validity to the allegations against his client.

    “This is an obvious smear campaign aimed at discrediting Gov. Cook by a political operative who has taken to social media more than 30 times in the last two days and demanded her removal before any review of the facts or evidence,” Lowell said in the statement. “Nothing in these vague, unsubstantiated allegations has any relevance to Gov. Cook’s role at the Federal Reserve, and they in no way justify her removal from the board.”

    In court Friday in Cook’s civil case, the Justice Department didn’t acknowledge any criminal investigation it may be conducting.

    But lawyers for the department have argued to a judge weighing the legality of her firing that “a Governor’s failure to carefully read her own financial documents casts a shadow over the Federal Reserve’s decisions,” according to a Justice Department court filing this week.

    Still, the Justice Department has tasked Ed Martin—whom the attorney general is using as a special investigator for a smattering of politically charged allegations that President Donald Trump is interested in—to look into the allegations around Cook, according to a person familiar with the investigation.

    Many of Trump’s attacks on the Fed have been focused on Fed Chair Jerome Powell, whom he appointed during his first term in office, and who was reappointed to another term under President Joe Biden.

    Trump has not tried to remove Powell, despite threats that he might do so. Some of those threats prompted a sell-off in US equity markets by investors concerned about Fed independence. The president does not have the power to remove a member of the Fed Board except “for cause,” not just because of a disagreement over monetary policy. But Trump used the allegations of mortgage fraud against Cook as justification for her removal.

    In the Thursday referral to the DOJ, Pulte described the new allegations as “extremely troubling.”

    “Second homes receive lower mortgage costs than investment properties, because investment properties are inherently riskier,” he wrote.

    The FHFA had already made a criminal referral alleging that Cook committed mortgage fraud by getting mortgages for two different properties, one in Michigan, another in Georgia, and claiming on both mortgages that they would be her primary residence.

    This story has been updated with additional reporting and context.

    – CNN’s Jeremy Herb, Phil Mattingly and Evan Perez contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Chris Isidore and CNN

    Source link

  • DC town hall answers some questions about how federal officers are being deployed – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    D.C. Council member Robert White’s virtual town hall revealed new details about the deployment of federal officers and National Guard troops in D.C., including daily operations with local police and limited interaction with the National Guard.

    D.C. Council member Robert White hosted a virtual town hall Monday night, shedding new light on how federal officers and National Guard troops are being deployed in the District.

    A D.C. police officer at the meeting talked about how the officers and guard members are being used.

    “We very much see this as an enhancement of our normal operations,” said Capt. Jon Dorrough, who is the acting commander for the Seventh District. “Since the inception of MPD, we’ve worked with our federal partners. However, it has been much, much enhanced that we’ve heard the mayor describe it as a ‘surge.’”

    Dorrough said the federal partners sent in by President Donald Trump have been deploying with D.C. police on a daily basis.

    “Primarily, they’ve been going out with our crime suppression teams, which are our teams that focus on proactive enforcement in the neighborhoods,” he said.

    Dorrough said they have been working with their special operations division and traffic units as well.

    “With that, you have seen increased levels of enforcement, things like serving warrants, traffic stops, but it is things that we do on a daily basis, just at a higher level,” he said.

    When it comes to the National Guard, he said they haven’t had much interaction with them.

    “I know there’s a lot of concern about the National Guard. That is not someone that we’ve been partnering with on a day-to-day basis, as far as patrolling or anything of that sort. They are very much focused on securing federal properties and the monuments right now,” he said.

    When asked about whether U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been working with D.C. police on daily operations, Dorrough said they have been out with them.

    “They have been deploying with some of our units. So, there is some cooperation on the street, as you might have seen,” he said. “There was an executive order issued by the chief that allows some very limited assistance to ICE, as far as transports.”

    When it comes to the information ICE gets, he said they are getting information about who they are arresting.

    “If they’re on the scene with us, the identity of folks that are stopped or arrested, they will be privy to that obviously if they’re on the scene with us,” Dorrough said.

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2025 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Valerie Bonk

    Source link

  • Redistricting battles intensify California, Texas and now Indiana

    [ad_1]

    The feud over redistricting continues across the country with new developments in Indiana, California and Texas. Multiple media outlets are reporting that Indiana state lawmakers are in Washington, D.C., Tuesday to meet with President Donald Trump, who has been pushing for more Republican seats in Congress. This comes after Vice President J.D. Vance met privately with Indiana Gov. Mike Braun earlier this month. For any redrawing of the congressional map in Indiana, Braun would have to call a special session to start the process, but lawmakers have the power to draw new maps. Republicans in the U.S. House outnumber Democrats in Indiana, limiting the chances they can pull off an additional seat.Things are also heating up in California. On Monday, Trump threatened to sue California over its plan to allow voters to decide whether to redistrict before next year’s election. Gov. Gavin Newsom posted on social media responding to the president with two words: “Bring it.” Newsom approved a special election that will take place in November for residents to vote on a redrawn congressional map. Republican lawmakers in California filed a lawsuit Monday aiming to remove Newsom’s redistricting plan from the November ballot. If the congressional map is approved, it could help Democrats win five more seats in the House next year.In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott is planning to sign into law a new congressional map that includes five more districts, favoring Republicans. Trump has pushed for the map to help the GOP maintain its slim majority in Congress in 2026. The timing of this is noteworthy because Republicans normally lose seats in the House during the midterms. Democrats are expected to challenge the new Texas map in court.Keep scrolling for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    The feud over redistricting continues across the country with new developments in Indiana, California and Texas.

    Multiple media outlets are reporting that Indiana state lawmakers are in Washington, D.C., Tuesday to meet with President Donald Trump, who has been pushing for more Republican seats in Congress. This comes after Vice President J.D. Vance met privately with Indiana Gov. Mike Braun earlier this month.

    For any redrawing of the congressional map in Indiana, Braun would have to call a special session to start the process, but lawmakers have the power to draw new maps.

    Republicans in the U.S. House outnumber Democrats in Indiana, limiting the chances they can pull off an additional seat.

    Things are also heating up in California. On Monday, Trump threatened to sue California over its plan to allow voters to decide whether to redistrict before next year’s election. Gov. Gavin Newsom posted on social media responding to the president with two words: “Bring it.”

    Newsom approved a special election that will take place in November for residents to vote on a redrawn congressional map. Republican lawmakers in California filed a lawsuit Monday aiming to remove Newsom’s redistricting plan from the November ballot.

    If the congressional map is approved, it could help Democrats win five more seats in the House next year.

    In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott is planning to sign into law a new congressional map that includes five more districts, favoring Republicans.

    Trump has pushed for the map to help the GOP maintain its slim majority in Congress in 2026. The timing of this is noteworthy because Republicans normally lose seats in the House during the midterms.

    Democrats are expected to challenge the new Texas map in court.

    Keep scrolling for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Polling memo reveals risk for Indiana Republicans as they weigh redistricting

    [ad_1]

    A majority of Indiana voters oppose mid-decade redistricting in their state, a new poll shows, as White House officials host Hoosier Republicans in Washington Tuesday amid President Donald Trump’s redistricting pressure campaign.

    The survey from left-leaning firm Change Research — which was commissioned by Count US IN, an Indiana-based nonprofit focused on increasing voter turnout and was obtained by POLITICO — shows several vulnerabilities for Republicans as Trump’s push to protect the GOP’s House majority sparks a nationwide redistricting arms race.

    Fifty-two percent of registered voters in Indiana — which Trump won by 19 points last year — said they are against Republicans revising their maps, with 43 percent “strongly” opposing the effort.

    That opposition rises to 60 percent after voters are informed of arguments for and against redistricting. The memo summarizing the survey breaks down some responses by party affiliation, but not all. The poll of 1,662 registered voters was conducted online between Aug. 18 to 21 and has a margin of sampling error of 2.6 percent.

    The unfavorable views of redistricting come as some four dozen of Indiana’s GOP lawmakers visit the White House on Tuesday for what’s being billed as a state leadership conference to coach legislators on how to sell the president’s agenda back home. The lawmakers are slated to meet with the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, per a person familiar with the planning. The group is expected to include Indiana House Speaker Todd Huston, whose daughter, Liz Huston, is one of White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s assistants.

    The visit was put on the books before Vice President JD Vance and administration officials traveled to Indiana to prod Gov. Mike Braun and top state lawmakers into redistricting. But it falls against the backdrop of the White House ratcheting up pressure on red states to redistrict.

    Meanwhile, the Indiana poll gives Democrats some potential messaging guidance as they race to counter Texas’ new map and the potential for more GOP pickups across Indiana, Missouri, Ohio and Florida — even thought Republicans hold a supermajority in Indiana’s Legislature. GOP lawmakers outnumber Democrats there four-to-one in the Senate, and hold 70 seats in the House to Democrats’ 30.

    Nearly two-thirds of the survey respondents said gerrymandering should be illegal. And a full two-thirds expressed opposition to Washington politicians meddling in their state’s politics. While Indiana is considered ruby-red, registered independents make up a larger share of the electorate than Republicans or Democrats.

    Meanwhile, an overwhelming 81 percent of respondents agreed with a Democratic argument in the survey that redistricting “should be conducted in a balanced way to ensure fairness and that our communities are not disenfranchised for political gain” — versus the Republican argument provided to respondents that because Indiana is a mostly Republican state, “the majority should be able to draw our districts in a way that benefits Republicans whenever they want.” That included 68 percent of Republicans, and more than 90 percent of independents and Democrats.

    And 45 percent of respondents said they’d be “somewhat” or “much” less likely to vote for their state representative for reelection if they elect to pass a redrawn congressional map.

    That’s higher among Democrats — a whopping 88 percent — versus 55 percent of independents and just 12 percent of Republicans. Conversely, 40 percent of GOP respondents said they were somewhat or much more likely to vote for someone who voted for redistricting, while 34 percent said it would not change their vote and 14 percent were unsure.

    The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The potential for backlash comes as Trump’s push drives a rift among Indiana’s Republican officials. Some, like the state’s lieutenant governor, Micah Beckwith, have embraced Trump’s effort. All nine of Indiana’s GOP members of Congress have backed it. But several Republican state lawmakers have openly opposed it, with one hard-right representative panning it as “politically optically horrible.” Former Republican Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels said a mid-decade redistricting effort would “just be wrong.”

    Meanwhile, Braun, the state’s current governor, has remained noncommittal on calling a special legislative session to consider a new map.

    The White House isn’t letting up on its pressure campaign. Along with outreach from top administration officials, Trump’s political operation and MAGA influencers like Charlie Kirk have threatened to support primary challenges of GOP state lawmakers who don’t fall in line.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump fires Fed governor Lisa Cook, opening new front in fight for control over central bank

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump said Monday night that he’s firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, an unprecedented move that would constitute a sharp escalation in his battle to exert greater control over what has long been considered an institution independent from day-to-day politics.Trump said in a letter posted on his Truth Social platform that he is removing Cook effective immediately because of allegations that she committed mortgage fraud.Cook said Monday night that she would not step down. “President Trump purported to fire me ‘for cause’ when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so,” she said in an emailed statement. “I will not resign.”Bill Pulte, a Trump appointee to the agency that regulates mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, made the accusations last week. Pulte alleged that Cook had claimed two primary residences — in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Atlanta — in 2021 to get better mortgage terms. Mortgage rates are often higher on second homes or those purchased to rent.Trump’s move is likely to touch off an extensive legal battle that will probably go to the Supreme Court and could disrupt financial markets. Stock futures declined slightly late Monday, as did the dollar against other major currencies.If Trump succeeds in removing Cook from the board, it could erode the Fed’s political independence, which is considered critical to its ability to fight inflation because it enables it to take unpopular steps like raising interest rates. If bond investors start to lose faith that the Fed will be able to control inflation, they will demand higher rates to own bonds, pushing up borrowing costs for mortgages, car loans and business loans.Cook has retained Abbe Lowell, a prominent Washington attorney. Lowell said Trump’s “reflex to bully is flawed and his demands lack any proper process, basis or legal authority,” adding, “We will take whatever actions are needed to prevent his attempted illegal action.”Cook was appointed to the Fed’s board by then-President Joe Biden in 2022 and is the first Black woman to serve as a governor. She was a Marshall Scholar and received degrees from Oxford University and Spelman College, and she has taught at Michigan State University and Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.Her nomination was opposed by most Senate Republicans, and she was approved on a 50-50 vote with the tie broken by then-Vice President Kamala Harris.Questions about ‘for cause’ firingThe law allows a president to fire a Fed governor “for cause,” which typically means for some kind of wrongdoing or dereliction of duty. The president cannot fire a governor simply because of differences over interest rate policy.Establishing a for-cause removal typically requires some type of proceeding that would allow Cook to answer the charges and present evidence, legal experts say, which hasn’t happened in this case.”This is a procedurally invalid removal under the statute,” said Lev Menand, a law professor at Columbia law school and author of “The Fed Unbound,” a book about the Fed’s actions during the COVID-19 pandemic.Menand also said for-cause firings are typically related to misconduct while in office, rather than based on private misconduct from before an official’s appointment.”This is not someone convicted of a crime,” Menand said. “This is not someone who is not carrying out their duties.”Fed governors vote on the central bank’s interest rate decisions and on issues of financial regulation. While they are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, they are not like cabinet secretaries, who serve at the pleasure of the president. They serve 14-year terms that are staggered in an effort to insulate the Fed from political influence.No presidential precedentWhile presidents have clashed with Fed chairs before, no president has sought to fire a Fed governor. In recent decades, presidents of both parties have largely respected Fed independence, though Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson put heavy pressure on the Fed during their presidencies — mostly behind closed doors. Still, that behind-the-scenes pressure to keep interest rates low, the same goal sought by Trump, has widely been blamed for touching off rampant inflation in the late 1960s and ’70s.President Harry Truman pushed Thomas McCabe to step down from his position as Fed chair in 1951, though that occurred behind the scenes.The Supreme Court signaled in a recent decision that Fed officials have greater legal protections from firing than other independent agencies, but it’s not clear if that extends to this case.Menand noted that the Court’s conservative majority has taken a very expansive view of presidential power, saying, “We’re in uncharted waters in a sense that it’s very difficult to predict that if Lisa Cook goes to court what will happen.”Sarah Binder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said the president’s use of the “for cause” provision is likely an effort to mask his true intent. “It seems like a fig leaf to get what we wants, which is muscling someone on the board to lower rates,” she said.A fight over interest ratesTrump has said he would only appoint Fed officials who would support lower borrowing costs. He recently named Stephen Miran, a top White House economic adviser, to replace another governor, Adriana Kugler, who stepped down about five months before her term officially ended Aug. 1.Trump appointed two governors in his first term, Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman, so replacing Cook would give Trump appointees a 4-3 majority on the Fed’s board.”The American people must have the full confidence in the honesty of the members entrusted with setting policy and overseeing the Federal Reserve,” Trump wrote in a letter addressed to Cook, a copy of which he posted online. “In light of your deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter, they cannot and I do not have such confidence in your integrity.”Trump argued that firing Cook was constitutional. “I have determined that faithfully enacting the law requires your immediate removal from office,” the president wrote.Cook will have to fight the legal battle herself, as the injured party, rather than the Fed.Trump’s announcement drew swift rebuke from advocates and former Fed officials.Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., called Trump’s attempt to fire Cook illegal, “the latest example of a desperate President searching for a scapegoat to cover for his own failure to lower costs for Americans. It’s an authoritarian power grab that blatantly violates the Federal Reserve Act, and must be overturned in court.”Trump has repeatedly attacked the Fed’s chair, Jerome Powell, for not cutting its short-term interest rate, and even threatened to fire him.Forcing Cook off the Fed’s governing board would provide Trump an opportunity to appoint a loyalist. Trump has said he would only appoint officials who would support cutting rates.Powell signaled last week that the Fed may cut rates soon even as inflation risks remain moderate. Meanwhile, Trump will be able to replace Powell in May 2026, when Powell’s term expires. However, 12 members of the Fed’s interest-rate setting committee have a vote on whether to raise or lower interest rates, so even replacing the chair might not guarantee that Fed policy will shift the way Trump wants.__Associated Press writer Fatima Hussein contributed.

    President Donald Trump said Monday night that he’s firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, an unprecedented move that would constitute a sharp escalation in his battle to exert greater control over what has long been considered an institution independent from day-to-day politics.

    Trump said in a letter posted on his Truth Social platform that he is removing Cook effective immediately because of allegations that she committed mortgage fraud.

    Cook said Monday night that she would not step down. “President Trump purported to fire me ‘for cause’ when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so,” she said in an emailed statement. “I will not resign.”

    Bill Pulte, a Trump appointee to the agency that regulates mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, made the accusations last week. Pulte alleged that Cook had claimed two primary residences — in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Atlanta — in 2021 to get better mortgage terms. Mortgage rates are often higher on second homes or those purchased to rent.

    Trump’s move is likely to touch off an extensive legal battle that will probably go to the Supreme Court and could disrupt financial markets. Stock futures declined slightly late Monday, as did the dollar against other major currencies.

    If Trump succeeds in removing Cook from the board, it could erode the Fed’s political independence, which is considered critical to its ability to fight inflation because it enables it to take unpopular steps like raising interest rates. If bond investors start to lose faith that the Fed will be able to control inflation, they will demand higher rates to own bonds, pushing up borrowing costs for mortgages, car loans and business loans.

    Cook has retained Abbe Lowell, a prominent Washington attorney. Lowell said Trump’s “reflex to bully is flawed and his demands lack any proper process, basis or legal authority,” adding, “We will take whatever actions are needed to prevent his attempted illegal action.”

    Cook was appointed to the Fed’s board by then-President Joe Biden in 2022 and is the first Black woman to serve as a governor. She was a Marshall Scholar and received degrees from Oxford University and Spelman College, and she has taught at Michigan State University and Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

    Her nomination was opposed by most Senate Republicans, and she was approved on a 50-50 vote with the tie broken by then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

    Questions about ‘for cause’ firing

    The law allows a president to fire a Fed governor “for cause,” which typically means for some kind of wrongdoing or dereliction of duty. The president cannot fire a governor simply because of differences over interest rate policy.

    Establishing a for-cause removal typically requires some type of proceeding that would allow Cook to answer the charges and present evidence, legal experts say, which hasn’t happened in this case.

    “This is a procedurally invalid removal under the statute,” said Lev Menand, a law professor at Columbia law school and author of “The Fed Unbound,” a book about the Fed’s actions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Menand also said for-cause firings are typically related to misconduct while in office, rather than based on private misconduct from before an official’s appointment.

    “This is not someone convicted of a crime,” Menand said. “This is not someone who is not carrying out their duties.”

    Fed governors vote on the central bank’s interest rate decisions and on issues of financial regulation. While they are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, they are not like cabinet secretaries, who serve at the pleasure of the president. They serve 14-year terms that are staggered in an effort to insulate the Fed from political influence.

    No presidential precedent

    While presidents have clashed with Fed chairs before, no president has sought to fire a Fed governor. In recent decades, presidents of both parties have largely respected Fed independence, though Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson put heavy pressure on the Fed during their presidencies — mostly behind closed doors. Still, that behind-the-scenes pressure to keep interest rates low, the same goal sought by Trump, has widely been blamed for touching off rampant inflation in the late 1960s and ’70s.

    President Harry Truman pushed Thomas McCabe to step down from his position as Fed chair in 1951, though that occurred behind the scenes.

    The Supreme Court signaled in a recent decision that Fed officials have greater legal protections from firing than other independent agencies, but it’s not clear if that extends to this case.

    Menand noted that the Court’s conservative majority has taken a very expansive view of presidential power, saying, “We’re in uncharted waters in a sense that it’s very difficult to predict that if Lisa Cook goes to court what will happen.”

    Sarah Binder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said the president’s use of the “for cause” provision is likely an effort to mask his true intent. “It seems like a fig leaf to get what we wants, which is muscling someone on the board to lower rates,” she said.

    A fight over interest rates

    Trump has said he would only appoint Fed officials who would support lower borrowing costs. He recently named Stephen Miran, a top White House economic adviser, to replace another governor, Adriana Kugler, who stepped down about five months before her term officially ended Aug. 1.

    Trump appointed two governors in his first term, Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman, so replacing Cook would give Trump appointees a 4-3 majority on the Fed’s board.

    “The American people must have the full confidence in the honesty of the members entrusted with setting policy and overseeing the Federal Reserve,” Trump wrote in a letter addressed to Cook, a copy of which he posted online. “In light of your deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter, they cannot and I do not have such confidence in your integrity.”

    Trump argued that firing Cook was constitutional. “I have determined that faithfully enacting the law requires your immediate removal from office,” the president wrote.

    Cook will have to fight the legal battle herself, as the injured party, rather than the Fed.

    Trump’s announcement drew swift rebuke from advocates and former Fed officials.

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., called Trump’s attempt to fire Cook illegal, “the latest example of a desperate President searching for a scapegoat to cover for his own failure to lower costs for Americans. It’s an authoritarian power grab that blatantly violates the Federal Reserve Act, and must be overturned in court.”

    Trump has repeatedly attacked the Fed’s chair, Jerome Powell, for not cutting its short-term interest rate, and even threatened to fire him.

    Forcing Cook off the Fed’s governing board would provide Trump an opportunity to appoint a loyalist. Trump has said he would only appoint officials who would support cutting rates.

    Powell signaled last week that the Fed may cut rates soon even as inflation risks remain moderate. Meanwhile, Trump will be able to replace Powell in May 2026, when Powell’s term expires. However, 12 members of the Fed’s interest-rate setting committee have a vote on whether to raise or lower interest rates, so even replacing the chair might not guarantee that Fed policy will shift the way Trump wants.

    __

    Associated Press writer Fatima Hussein contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump signs executive orders to end cashless bail in D.C. and ban flag burning – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    President Trump on Monday signed an executive order to push Washington, D.C., and other localities to end cashless bail for arrested suspects, threatening to withhold federal funding from cities that fail to end the program.

    ▶ Watch Video: Understanding cashless bail amid Trump’s calls for its elimination

    Washington — President Trump on Monday signed an executive order to push Washington, D.C., and other localities to end cashless bail for arrested suspects, threatening to withhold federal funding from cities that fail to end the program. It’s the latest move in the president’s federal crackdown on crime. 

    Mr. Trump also signed an order directing the Justice Department to investigate instances of flag burning, although the Supreme Court in 1989 ruled that the First Amendment protected symbolic speech, including flag burning. 

    The executive order on cashless bail charges Attorney General Pam Bondi with identifying jurisdictions in the U.S. that have cashless bail policies, and withholds or revokes federal grants to those jurisdictions. 

    “We’re ending it,” Mr. Trump said of cashless bail before he signed the executive order in the Oval Office. “But we’re starting by ending it in D.C., and that we have the right to do through federalization.”

    The move comes as the National Guard and federal law enforcement are dispersed throughout the district, patrolling the streets. In the last 11 days, the White House says no murders have taken place in the district. 

    D.C. introduced cashless bail in the 1990s over civil rights concerns, becoming one of the first cities in the country to do so. 

    “That was when the big crime in this country started,” Mr. Trump said Monday, speaking of cashless bail. “They kill people and they get out. Cashless bail, they thought it was discriminatory to make people put up money because they just killed three people lying on the street.”

    The president also signed an executive order Monday stating it’s the government’s objective to hold as many suspects captured in D.C. in federal custody as possible, and to charge them with federal crimes. The president also signed an executive order encouraging federal law enforcement agencies to hire additional personnel so they can surge law enforcement to D.C. 

    Trump on federal government intervention in Chicago: “We’re ready to go anywhere” 

    One of the president’s executive orders also directs the defense secretary to ensure that each state’s National Guard is resourced, trained, organized and available to help in “quelling civil disturbances,” and directs the defense secretary to designate a number of each state’s National Guard to be available for such purposes. Mr. Trump has said Chicago could be the next city where the federal government imposes a crime crackdown

    “We’re ready to go anywhere,” the president said when asked about Chicago. “We can go anywhere on less than 24 hours’ notice.”

    President Trump has called for an end to cashless bail, claiming it has caused an increase in crime rates. CBS News’ Errol Barnett explains how cashless bail works, and breaks down how bail reform is impacting cities across the U.S.

    Cracking down on flag burning

    The executive order the president signed pushes Bondi to investigate instances of flag desecration. The administration has been critical of pro-Palestinian protests and anti-immigration crackdown demonstrations that have featured flag burning.

    “And then where there’s evidence of criminal activity, where prosecution wouldn’t fall afoul of the First Amendment, it instructs the Department of Justice to prosecute those who were engaged in these instances of flag burning,” said Trump staff secretary Will Scharf. 

    Mr. Trump said he wants the penalty for flag burning to be at least one year in prison. 

    “And what the penalty is going to be, if you burn a flag, you get one year in jail, no early exits, no nothing,” the president said of what he hopes punishment for flag burning will be. 

    Creation of specialized National Guard unit and quick reaction force

    The order also included a provision ordering the defense secretary to create a specialized unit within th eD.C. National Guard “dedicated to ensuring public safety and order in the Nation’s capital.”  

    The president also ordered the defense secretary to begin ensuring that every state’s National Guard has the resources and is trained and available to help federal, state and local law enforcement address civil disturbances and ensure public safety and order “whenever the circumstances necessitate, as appropriate under law.”  

    Under the order, the defense secretary is also supposed to designate numbers of trained National Guard members in each state “to be reasonably available for rapid mobilization” for those circumstances and ensure there’s a standing National Guard quick reaction force that would be available to be deployed rapidly nationwide.. 

    [ad_2]

    WTOP Staff

    Source link

  • California Republicans sue to block Congressional redistricting plan

    [ad_1]

    By Brad Brooks

    (Reuters) -California Republicans filed on Monday their second legal challenge against Governor Gavin Newsom’s redistricting plan, which aims to give Democrats five more Congressional seats amid a nationwide scramble for advantage in 2026 elections.

    The lawsuit filed by Republican lawmakers argues that the redistricting plan goes against the California constitution and requirements that political maps be drawn by an independent redistricting body.

    “This is an issue about good governance in the state of California,” said Corrin Rankin, chairwoman of the California Republican Party, at a press conference announcing the legal action. “Californians deserve to have the right to choose our legislators.”

    The effort by Newsom and Democrats in California’s legislature to rework the state’s Congressional maps was passed last week. It came in response to Texas Republicans pushing through new Congressional maps in that state that could give the GOP five more seats in Congress, as urged by President Donald Trump.

    Trump is asking several Republican-led states to redraw their Congressional maps ahead of next year’s midterm elections in an effort to retain control of the House.

    California Republicans had already filed one lawsuit to stop Newsom’s redistricting plan, but it was rejected by the state’s supreme court last week.

    On Monday, lawmakers filed an emergency petition before the top court against the California legislature and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber.

    “The Constitution’s guardrails on redistricting are essential to ensuring that Californians are spared from the political influence and inherent turbulence of perpetual map-drawing in the hands of the Legislature,” the lawsuit read.

    Weber’s office declined to comment.

    Hannah Milgrom, a spokeswoman for Newsom, said in a written statement that the Republican legal challenge would fail.

    “Trump’s toadies already got destroyed once in court. Now, they are trying again – to protect Trump’s power grab and prevent the voters from having their say … They will lose,” she said.

    Trump told reporters in Washington on Monday that his administration could challenge California’s redistricting with its own lawsuit. Newsom on X said, “bring it.”

    The Texas redistricting plan that passed the Senate early on Saturday is also the target of legal action.

    A group of 13 Texas residents filed a lawsuit against their Governor Greg Abbott over the weekend, arguing the redistricting plan was racially discriminatory.

    (Reporting by Brad Brooks in Colorado; editing by Donna Bryson and Nia Williams)

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump says he has fired Fed governor Lisa Cook. She says he has no ‘authority’ to fire her

    [ad_1]

    (CNN) — President Donald Trump on Monday said he has fired Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, according to a letter addressed to her posted on his social media — the first instance of a president firing a central bank governor in the central bank’s 111-year history.

    The unprecedented move represents a significant escalation of the president’s battle against the Fed, which he has blamed for taking too long to lower interest rates. But Cook said the president doesn’t have the “authority” to fire her and that she plans to continue in her post.

    Cook has recently come under fire by Trump and members of his administration for allegedly committing mortgage fraud. The Justice Department has said it plans to investigate those allegations first raised by Federal Housing Finance Director Bill Pulte.

    Cook has not been charged with any wrongdoing.

    “President Trump purported to fire me ‘for cause’ when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so,” Cook said in statement her attorneys shared with CNN Monday night. “I will not resign. I will continue to carry out my duties to help the American economy as I have been doing since 2022.”

    The Fed declined to comment on the news.

    It’s unclear whether Trump has the legal authority to fire Cook over these allegations. The law specifies that a president may only remove members of the Fed’s board “for cause” – though what merits a for-cause firing has not been explicitly defined.

    Trump, in his letter to Cook wrote, “I have determined that there is sufficient cause to remove you from your position.”

    (A CNN review of mortgage documents shows that Cook took out mortgages for two properties, both of which were listed as her principal residence. However, it’s not known why she did so or if she did so intentionally.)

    “In light of your deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter … I do not have such confidence in your integrity. At a minimum, the conduct at issue exhibits the sort of gross negligence in financial transactions that calls into question your competence and trustworthiness as a financial regulator,” Trump added in his letter.

    “This is not DOJ opening anything, they haven’t charged her. So as of right now, I think it’s kind of questionable for cause,” former Federal prosecutor Shan Wu told CNN’s Brianna Keilar, referring to the Department of Justice. “It’s definitely gonna get litigated.”

    Appointed to the Fed board by former President Joe Biden in 2022, Cook is the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor.

    While the firing may be challenged in courts, even going up to the Supreme Court, Trump’s firing of Cook puts the central bank of the world’s largest economy in uncharted waters.

    For example, it’s unknown whether Cook would have to leave the Fed’s board immediately, and if so, will Trump have the opportunity to nominate someone else to fill her seat. Cook’s attorney, Abbe David Lowell of Lowell & Associates, said in a statement to CNN: “We will take whatever actions are needed to prevent his attempted illegal action.”

    The Fed’s next monetary policy meeting is less than a month away, over September 16 and 17.

    Last week Cook released a statement saying she would not be “bullied” into resigning.

    “I have no intention of being bullied to step down from my position because of some questions raised in a tweet. I do intend to take any questions about my financial history seriously as a member of the Federal Reserve and so I am gathering the accurate information to answer any legitimate questions and provide the facts,” she said in that statement.

    Fed independence at risk

    The Fed is designed to be independent from politicians specifically so it can focus on economic data – and not political considerations – in achieving its dual mandate to keep price increases in check while supporting the job market.

    Politicians often prefer lower interest rates, aiming to boost stock prices and make it cheaper for people to borrow money, both popular moves among voters. But lower interest rates risk igniting price pressures. On the other hand, leaving rates too high could overly restrict spending and hiring, hurting the economy.

    No central bank gets it right all the time. However, studies strongly suggest that economies with independent central banks experience better outcomes, including lower inflation.

    If the move costs the US its economic credibility, American assets, such as stocks and the dollar, could get hammered. That in turn could leave investors to demand higher premiums to lend money to the US.

    “The bigger picture is sadly simple: The Fed is designed to be independent of politics, for very good reasons,” Alan Blinder, a former vice chair at the Fed told CNN Monday night. “He is trying to end that and make it an arm of the Trump administration, which will be very bad for monetary policy if it happens.”

    Senator Elizabeth Warren, the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, said in a statement that Trump’s attempt to fire Cook is “an authoritarian power grab that blatantly violates the Federal Reserve Act, and must be overturned in court.”

    Representatives for Republican Senator Tim Scott, who leads the committee, did not immediately respond to CNN’s request for a comment.

    Immediately following Trump’s announcement on Monday, the US dollar index dropped by 0.3%. The index measures the strength of the dollar against a basket of international currencies.

    US stock futures, meanwhile, slid further after a day in the green. Dow futures fell 100 points, or 0.2%. S&P 500 futures fell 0.3%. Nasdaq 100 futures slipped 0.5%.

    The price of gold, which is considered a safe haven asset during times of uncertainty, rose 0.45%.

    This story has been updated with additional context and developments.

    [ad_2]

    Elisabeth Buchwald, Bryan Mena and CNN

    Source link

  • More US hospitals are ending gender-affirming care for minors. How this could impact patients – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    Two U.S. hospitals are the latest to announce they will be ending some, or all, of their pediatric gender-affirming care services at the end of the month.

    (NEW YORK) — Two U.S. hospitals are the latest to announce they will be ending some, or all, of their pediatric gender-affirming care services at the end of the month.

    Kaiser Permanente, a health care company that manages 40 hospitals across several states — including California, Oregon and Virginia — said it is pausing gender-related surgeries for patients under age 18 on Aug. 29. It noted that other gender-related care will continue.

    Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C. said it will also stop prescribing gender-affirming medications on Aug. 30. It follows a move the hospital made in late January to pause all puberty-blockers and hormone prescriptions for minors.

    Since President Donald Trump’s second term began in January, at least 17 major hospital systems in at least nine states and the District of Columbia have paused, discontinued, canceled or ended pediatric gender services, according to an ABC News tally, amid mounting legal and regulatory concerns.

    In January, Trump signed an executive order stating the U.S. would not “fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support” gender transition of those under age 19 and would “rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.”

    Transgender adults and youth may experience extreme psychological distress due to a mismatch in their gender presentation and identity. They experience significantly higher rates of suicide than the general population, but some studies suggest gender-affirming care eases those feelings of distress.

    While some individuals and groups have called for a slower approach to gender-affirming care for minors, other pediatric gender care experts and advocates have said ending such care can have a harmful effect on patients’ mental health and well-being.

    They say the government is interfering in conversations meant to be held only between patients, their families and doctors, and that doctors are not being allowed to follow the established medical guidelines that medical associations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health have endorsed.

    “This is health care provided by licensed clinicians according to standards of care that have been around for many years,” Kellan Baker, a senior adviser for health policy with the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit think tank that focuses on LGBTQ+ issues, told ABC News.

    “To have the government interfering … overreaching into the private conversations between patients and families and their doctors and telling doctors that they cannot provide the care that they know that their patients need — that is a very serious government overreach,” he added.

    Evidence for gender-affirming care
    Gender-affirming care may include medical, surgical, mental health and non-medical services. It can range from allowing a child to pick their pronouns to more invasive treatments typically prescribed for older teens.

    Early gender affirming care can be “crucial” to overall health and well-being, allowing a child to focus on social transitions and can help build up confidence while dealing with the health care system, the federal Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health wrote during the Biden administration.

    Gender-affirming care is supported by multiple major medical organizations. Studies have shown many of the treatment options are generally safe and that care can have a positive impact on mental health, which psychotherapy alone cannot provide, some experts said.

    Some experts have questioned the significance of the interventions on long-term mental health as well as the possibility of regret and point out potential risks on future fertility.

    “It’s deeply disappointing that hospital systems have relented to the political pressure, not scientific pressure, to end these sorts of programs,” Dr. Marci Bowers, a gynecologic and reconstructive surgeon at Mills-Peninsula Medical Cener in Burlingame, California, told ABC News. “We have decades of evidence-based information that suggests that gender-related health care is beneficial to patients and their families with very, very, very scant incidences of regret or disappointment in that care.”

    A spokesperson for Children’s National Hospital told ABC News it was discontinuing the prescription of gender-affirming medications in light of “escalating legal and regulatory risks” to the hospital, its providers and families.

    “We know this change will have a significant impact on affected patients, families and staff, and our care teams are working directly with families of current patients to support them,” the statement read, in part. “Mental health and other support services for patients remain available. LGBT patients are always welcome at Children’s National for other medical needs and treatment.”

    Similarly, a spokesperson for Kaiser Permanente pointed ABC News to actions from the administration, including the Department of Justice issuing subpoenas to doctors and clinics providing gender-affirming care to transgender youth.

    “As the legal and regulatory environment for gender-affirming care continues to evolve, we must carefully consider the significant risks being created for health systems, clinicians, and patients under the age of 19 seeking this care,” the statement read, in part. “After significant deliberation and consultation with internal and external experts, including our physicians, we’ve made the difficult decision to pause surgical treatment for patients under the age of 19 in our hospitals and surgical centers.”

    The hospital said it would work to identify clinicians performing surgery if a patient’s planned operation was canceled and, if a clinician is available, the hospital said it will work with patients and their families to coordinate care and provide coverage for surgical treatment.

    Bowers — the Mills-Peninsula gynecologic and reconstructive surgeon — said if somebody is in treatment and that treatment is suddenly withdrawn, it can be extremely difficult, and patients can experience psychosocial and personal setbacks. She said treatment gave patients a psychological boost.

    ‘When you look and you talk to these individuals, they are happier about themselves,” she said. “They’re happier about their bodies. They’re happier about their choice of friends, how they see themselves in the world. They’re more optimistic. So those are softer measures, but they’re important, and those things matter.”

    She also said withdrawing medical care can be a major disruption to patients’ lives because families may have to move to receive care that is now no longer being provided locally.

    Baker — the Movement Advancement Project’s health policy adviser — said he sees the actions from the administration as a “campaign of terror” against health care institutions, doctors and families, and that decisions about continuing or discontinuing gender-affirming care should remain between patients and their health care providers.

    “This is about health care providers working together with patients and parents to get kids what they need,” Baker said. “It’s nothing more. It’s nothing less. All that trans people are trying to do is live their lives, and all the parents of trans kids are trying to do is love their kids.”

    Concern after HHS report
    Not all experts are opposed to the closures. Dr. Kristopher Kaliebe, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and professor at the University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, believes the retrenchment reflects long-standing scientific concerns.

    “Clinicians have quietly recognized for years that the evidence base for these interventions in minors is weak,” he told ABC News. “There’s no strong proof that they improve mental health, and we simply don’t know the long-term outcomes.”

    In May, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released what it called a “comprehensive review” of transgender care for children and teens, calling for broader use of psychotherapy for young people with gender dysphoria rather than gender-affirming care.

    The authors of the review were not named, so their credentials have not been reviewed and the paper has not yet been peer-reviewed by independent scientists yet — a step this is typically necessary before changing any guidelines that health care providers follow.

    The more than 400-page document details possible harm from medical interventions for youth, including the use of puberty blockers and potentially associated risks, such as infertility.

    It follows systematic reviews from Sweden, Finland and the U.K. that have resulted in the three countries restricting gender-affirming care. England’s National Health Service ended prescribing puberty blockers for minors experiencing gender dysphoria outside of clinical trials. Sweden and Finland have followed psychotherapy-first models.

    Kaliebe called the HHS review a needed step, saying, “For the first time, the federal government acknowledged openly that these interventions are experimental and that we need high-quality data, especially long-term tracking of outcomes.”

    However, Bowers dismissed the HHS review as derivative, saying the team that put the report together didn’t appear to conduct its own review and rather “pirated” reviews conducted overseas.

    “There were a lot of other mischaracterizations throughout that report,” Bowers said. “Most experts, frankly, scoff at what they saw. … It’s disappointing. It sounds more like politics than it does practical and factual matter.”

    Baker concurred, referring to the report as a “really shocking government document,” suggesting it was commissioned right after Trump’s January executive order with a pre-determined outcome.

    “I’m a health services researcher by training … and I’m very familiar with evidence-based medicine and systematic reviews, and one of the ways that you need to make sure that you’re approaching work like that is to not have your thumb on the scale,” he said. “You don’t go in with a research question that has already been decided, where the outcome has already been decided. That’s not good science. It’s not science at all.”

    He said producing the report so quickly after the executive order was issued — a little over three months — was too short of a timeline for a thorough review and he criticized not having the names of the authors on the report to ensure there were no conflicts of interest and that the authors were experts in their field.

    Experts have said they are in favor of more research being conducted — Kaliebe emphasized the need for rigorous tracking of harms and a clearer study of psychotherapeutic approaches.

    Bowers argued that while stronger research is welcome, cutting off services altogether harms real people.

    “We know from decades of clinical experience that when care is affirming, young people are happier and healthier,” she said. “That’s what parents see, even if politics obscures it.”

    If you or someone you know is struggling with thoughts of suicide, free, confidential help is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Call or text the national lifeline at 988.

     

    Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

    [ad_2]

    WTOP Staff

    Source link

  • US seeks to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Uganda after he refuses plea offer

    [ad_1]

    Immigration officials said they intend to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Uganda, after he declined an offer to be deported to Costa Rica in exchange for remaining in jail and pleading guilty to human smuggling charges, according to a Saturday court filing.The Costa Rica offer came late Thursday, after it was clear that the Salvadoran national would likely be released from a Tennessee jail the following day. Abrego Garcia declined to extend his stay in jail and was released on Friday to await trial in Maryland with his family. Later that day, the Department of Homeland Security notified his attorneys that he would be deported to Uganda and should report to immigration authorities on Monday.His attorneys declined to comment on whether the plea offer had been formally rescinded. The brief they filed only said that Abrego Garcia had declined one part of the offer — to remain in jail — and that his attorneys would “communicate the government’s proposal to Mr. Abrego.”Abrego Garcia’s case became a flashpoint in President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda after he was mistakenly deported in March. Facing a court order, the Trump administration brought him back to the U.S. in June, only to detain him on human smuggling charges.He has pleaded not guilty and has asked the judge to dismiss the case, claiming that it is an attempt to punish him for challenging his deportation to El Salvador. The Saturday filing came as a supplement to that motion to dismiss, stating that the threat to deport him to Uganda is more proof that the prosecution is vindictive.“The government immediately responded to Mr. Abrego’s release with outrage,” the filing reads. “Despite having requested and received assurances from the government of Costa Rica that Mr. Abrego would be accepted there, within minutes of his release from pretrial custody, an ICE representative informed Mr. Abrego’s counsel that the government intended to deport Mr. Abrego to Uganda and ordered him to report to ICE’s Baltimore Field Office Monday morning.”Although Abrego Garcia was deemed eligible for pretrial release, he had remained in jail at the request of his attorneys, who feared the Republican administration could try to immediately deport him again if he were freed. Those fears were somewhat allayed by a recent ruling in a separate case in Maryland, which requires immigration officials to allow Abrego Garcia time to mount a defense.

    Immigration officials said they intend to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Uganda, after he declined an offer to be deported to Costa Rica in exchange for remaining in jail and pleading guilty to human smuggling charges, according to a Saturday court filing.

    The Costa Rica offer came late Thursday, after it was clear that the Salvadoran national would likely be released from a Tennessee jail the following day. Abrego Garcia declined to extend his stay in jail and was released on Friday to await trial in Maryland with his family. Later that day, the Department of Homeland Security notified his attorneys that he would be deported to Uganda and should report to immigration authorities on Monday.

    His attorneys declined to comment on whether the plea offer had been formally rescinded. The brief they filed only said that Abrego Garcia had declined one part of the offer — to remain in jail — and that his attorneys would “communicate the government’s proposal to Mr. Abrego.”

    Abrego Garcia’s case became a flashpoint in President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda after he was mistakenly deported in March. Facing a court order, the Trump administration brought him back to the U.S. in June, only to detain him on human smuggling charges.

    He has pleaded not guilty and has asked the judge to dismiss the case, claiming that it is an attempt to punish him for challenging his deportation to El Salvador. The Saturday filing came as a supplement to that motion to dismiss, stating that the threat to deport him to Uganda is more proof that the prosecution is vindictive.

    “The government immediately responded to Mr. Abrego’s release with outrage,” the filing reads. “Despite having requested and received assurances from the government of Costa Rica that Mr. Abrego would be accepted there, within minutes of his release from pretrial custody, an ICE representative informed Mr. Abrego’s counsel that the government intended to deport Mr. Abrego to Uganda and ordered him to report to ICE’s Baltimore Field Office Monday morning.”

    Although Abrego Garcia was deemed eligible for pretrial release, he had remained in jail at the request of his attorneys, who feared the Republican administration could try to immediately deport him again if he were freed. Those fears were somewhat allayed by a recent ruling in a separate case in Maryland, which requires immigration officials to allow Abrego Garcia time to mount a defense.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Texas GOP passes the House gerrymander Trump asked for

    [ad_1]

    Texas Republicans approved a new, aggressively gerrymandered congressional map early Saturday morning, moving forward with a power grab pushed by President Donald Trump.

    The GOP-controlled state Senate approved the map on a party-line vote after hours of debate that began Friday morning. Republicans used a procedural move to block a Democratic senator’s plans to filibuster the bill, forcing it to a vote — one final show of force from GOP leadership after weeks of partisan fighting.

    The map could ultimately help flip as many as five seats for the GOP starting with next year’s midterms. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is set to quickly sign the legislation, capping off a turbulent few weeks in Texas over Republicans’ now-successful effort to further skew the maps in the GOP’s favor ahead of the 2030 census.

    Under the new map, Republicans in Texas are aiming to earn 30 House seats — up from their current 25 — as they attempt to hold onto control of the chamber in what could be an unfavorable environment for them next year. Republicans currently have just a three-seat majority in the House, so the new Texas map alone will significantly affect their chances.

    The unusual offcycle redistricting effort in Texas has set off a contentious national tit-for-tat. California formally launched its preemptive retaliation on Thursday, with lawmakers approving a ballot measure redrawing the state’s map to create five new Democratic seats to offset Texas. That measure —which would temporarily circumvent the state’s independent redistricting commission — now goes to voters on the November ballot, a gerrymander Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has cast as necessary to preserve democracy.

    But Republicans could soon have the advantage as a redistricting battle escalates nationwide: The White House is pressuring other GOP states, like Indiana and Missouri, to take on their own redistricting gambits. Democratic governors in New York and Illinois have vowed to fight back, but have so far taken no concrete steps to do so.

    Democrats and civil rights groups have vowed to challenge the legality of the map, and will likely argue that Republicans unlawfully took race into consideration when redrawing the lines.

    Republicans, however, contend that they redrew the districts explicitly for partisan purposes and did not account for race or ethnicity.

    “I did not take race into consideration when drawing this map,” said state Sen. Phil King, the Texas Republican who wrote the redistricting legislation, at a committee hearing. “I drew it based on what would better perform for Republican candidates.”

    Racial gerrymandering claims are one of the last remaining ways to challenge a political map in federal court, since the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 barred them from policing partisan gerrymandering. The new map – which was drawn using 2024 election data – creates four new majority-Hispanic districts, drawn to reflect Hispanic voters’ shift toward the GOP.

    Texas House Democrats protested the maps by leaving the state for two weeks, depriving Republicans of the ability to conduct legislative business. Those lawmakers returned on Monday — clearing the way for Republicans to quickly pass the legislation. Democrats racked up thousands of dollars in fines for ducking their legislative duties, and when they returned, House Speaker Dustin Burrows sought one last punishment: He ordered law enforcement to chaperone the Democrats to ensure they would be present for passage of the map.

    One Democrat, state Rep. Nicole Collier, refused to sign a permission slip allowing an officer to monitor her movements, instead staging a three-day sit-in on the House floor.

    “When I press that button to vote, I know these maps will harm my constituents — I won’t just go along quietly with their intimidation or their discrimination,” Collier said from the chamber.

    The Senate passed its map on Saturday morning after thwarting an attempted filibuster from another Democrat who planned to stage one last protest against the legislation. But Republicans made a procedural move that ended debate and the chamber approved the map along party lines.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump teases tariffs on imported furniture

    [ad_1]

    Trump teases tariffs on imported furniture

    President Donald Trump has announced an investigation into tariffs on foreign-made furniture, which could affect prices and manufacturing in the U.S.

    Updated: 4:31 AM PDT Aug 23, 2025

    Editorial Standards

    President Donald Trump said on Friday that new tariffs on foreign-made furniture are coming later this year following an investigation.”Within the next 50 days, that Investigation will be completed, and Furniture coming from other Countries into the United States will be Tariffed at a Rate yet to be determined,” the president wrote on Truth Social. “This will bring the Furniture Business back to North Carolina, South Carolina, Michigan, and States all across the Union.”A White House official clarified that the president is referencing a previously announced investigation that “will assess the national security risks arising from the United States’ increasing dependence on imported timber, lumber, and derivative products like paper, furniture, and cabinetry.”Nevertheless, the president’s comments on Friday sank some furniture stocks, from Wayfair to Williams-Sonoma. An industry coalition, called “Furniture for America,” expressed concerns about steeper tariffs earlier this year in written comments to the Commerce Department.”There is no rational relationship between imports of wood products or furniture and the national security of the United States,” the coalition wrote. “Second, no amount of tariffs will bring back American furniture manufacturing back to its prior levels. Tariffs will harm manufacturing still being done in the United States.” The White House said new tariffs on this sector would not stack on top of so-called “reciprocal” tariffs that are already targeting a wide range of countries, including major furniture suppliers like China and Vietnam. Federal data suggests those tariffs may be starting to show up in some furniture prices for consumers. The latest Consumer Price Index shows that, while overall inflation held steady between June and July 2025, furniture and bedding prices increased by 0.9 percent month-to-month. Some experts have identified this as an early warning sign, while conceding that the impact of tariffs on prices has generally been less severe than anticipated, perhaps because many businesses are absorbing added costs instead of passing them on to consumers. It remains to be seen how Trump’s latest batch of tariffs on most trading partners that took effect earlier this month will impact these trends.

    President Donald Trump said on Friday that new tariffs on foreign-made furniture are coming later this year following an investigation.

    “Within the next 50 days, that Investigation will be completed, and Furniture coming from other Countries into the United States will be Tariffed at a Rate yet to be determined,” the president wrote on Truth Social. “This will bring the Furniture Business back to North Carolina, South Carolina, Michigan, and States all across the Union.”

    A White House official clarified that the president is referencing a previously announced investigation that “will assess the national security risks arising from the United States’ increasing dependence on imported timber, lumber, and derivative products like paper, furniture, and cabinetry.”

    Nevertheless, the president’s comments on Friday sank some furniture stocks, from Wayfair to Williams-Sonoma.

    An industry coalition, called “Furniture for America,” expressed concerns about steeper tariffs earlier this year in written comments to the Commerce Department.

    “There is no rational relationship between imports of wood products or furniture and the national security of the United States,” the coalition wrote. “Second, no amount of tariffs will bring back American furniture manufacturing back to its prior levels. Tariffs will harm manufacturing still being done in the United States.”

    The White House said new tariffs on this sector would not stack on top of so-called “reciprocal” tariffs that are already targeting a wide range of countries, including major furniture suppliers like China and Vietnam.

    Federal data suggests those tariffs may be starting to show up in some furniture prices for consumers.

    The latest Consumer Price Index shows that, while overall inflation held steady between June and July 2025, furniture and bedding prices increased by 0.9 percent month-to-month. Some experts have identified this as an early warning sign, while conceding that the impact of tariffs on prices has generally been less severe than anticipated, perhaps because many businesses are absorbing added costs instead of passing them on to consumers.

    It remains to be seen how Trump’s latest batch of tariffs on most trading partners that took effect earlier this month will impact these trends.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump teases tariffs on imported furniture

    [ad_1]

    Trump teases tariffs on imported furniture

    President Donald Trump has announced an investigation into tariffs on foreign-made furniture, which could affect prices and manufacturing in the U.S.

    Updated: 7:31 AM EDT Aug 23, 2025

    Editorial Standards

    President Donald Trump said on Friday that new tariffs on foreign-made furniture are coming later this year following an investigation.”Within the next 50 days, that Investigation will be completed, and Furniture coming from other Countries into the United States will be Tariffed at a Rate yet to be determined,” the president wrote on Truth Social. “This will bring the Furniture Business back to North Carolina, South Carolina, Michigan, and States all across the Union.”A White House official clarified that the president is referencing a previously announced investigation that “will assess the national security risks arising from the United States’ increasing dependence on imported timber, lumber, and derivative products like paper, furniture, and cabinetry.”Nevertheless, the president’s comments on Friday sank some furniture stocks, from Wayfair to Williams-Sonoma. An industry coalition, called “Furniture for America,” expressed concerns about steeper tariffs earlier this year in written comments to the Commerce Department.”There is no rational relationship between imports of wood products or furniture and the national security of the United States,” the coalition wrote. “Second, no amount of tariffs will bring back American furniture manufacturing back to its prior levels. Tariffs will harm manufacturing still being done in the United States.” The White House said new tariffs on this sector would not stack on top of so-called “reciprocal” tariffs that are already targeting a wide range of countries, including major furniture suppliers like China and Vietnam. Federal data suggests those tariffs may be starting to show up in some furniture prices for consumers. The latest Consumer Price Index shows that, while overall inflation held steady between June and July 2025, furniture and bedding prices increased by 0.9 percent month-to-month. Some experts have identified this as an early warning sign, while conceding that the impact of tariffs on prices has generally been less severe than anticipated, perhaps because many businesses are absorbing added costs instead of passing them on to consumers. It remains to be seen how Trump’s latest batch of tariffs on most trading partners that took effect earlier this month will impact these trends.

    President Donald Trump said on Friday that new tariffs on foreign-made furniture are coming later this year following an investigation.

    “Within the next 50 days, that Investigation will be completed, and Furniture coming from other Countries into the United States will be Tariffed at a Rate yet to be determined,” the president wrote on Truth Social. “This will bring the Furniture Business back to North Carolina, South Carolina, Michigan, and States all across the Union.”

    A White House official clarified that the president is referencing a previously announced investigation that “will assess the national security risks arising from the United States’ increasing dependence on imported timber, lumber, and derivative products like paper, furniture, and cabinetry.”

    Nevertheless, the president’s comments on Friday sank some furniture stocks, from Wayfair to Williams-Sonoma.

    An industry coalition, called “Furniture for America,” expressed concerns about steeper tariffs earlier this year in written comments to the Commerce Department.

    “There is no rational relationship between imports of wood products or furniture and the national security of the United States,” the coalition wrote. “Second, no amount of tariffs will bring back American furniture manufacturing back to its prior levels. Tariffs will harm manufacturing still being done in the United States.”

    The White House said new tariffs on this sector would not stack on top of so-called “reciprocal” tariffs that are already targeting a wide range of countries, including major furniture suppliers like China and Vietnam.

    Federal data suggests those tariffs may be starting to show up in some furniture prices for consumers.

    The latest Consumer Price Index shows that, while overall inflation held steady between June and July 2025, furniture and bedding prices increased by 0.9 percent month-to-month. Some experts have identified this as an early warning sign, while conceding that the impact of tariffs on prices has generally been less severe than anticipated, perhaps because many businesses are absorbing added costs instead of passing them on to consumers.

    It remains to be seen how Trump’s latest batch of tariffs on most trading partners that took effect earlier this month will impact these trends.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The US government is taking an $8.9 billion stake in Intel

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump says the US government is taking a 10 percent stake in chip maker Intel. Trump shared the news during a press conference on Friday, though an official announcement is still forthcoming, Reuters reports. News of a plan to convert Intel’s previously promised CHIPS Act funding into equity in the company was first reported earlier in August.

    A meeting between Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan and Trump following the President’s call for Tan to resign seems to be the source of the deal. “He walked in wanting to keep his job and he ended up giving us 10 billion dollars for the United States. So we picked up 10 billion,” Trump shared during the press conference.

    Intel later announced more details on the investment. The company said in a press release that the government will “make an $8.9 billion investment in Intel common stock.” It adds that the equity stake will be funded by $5.7 billion previously earmarked for Intel as part of the CHIPS act, and $3.2 billion awarded as part of the Secure Enclave program. Intel had previously recieved $2.2 billion in CHIPS grants, bringing the government’s total spend on the chipmaker to $11.1 billion. The government paid $20.47 per share, so the $8.9 billion investment is equivalent to a 9.9 percent stake in the company.

    It’s important to note that the government investing in Intel is not the same thing as receiving free money, it’s the exact opposite. Despite earlier comments from US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick suggesting the stake would be non-voting, common stock does come with voting rights. Intel does note that the investment will be passive, with no board representation, and that the government has agreed to vote with its board of directors “on matters requiring shareholder approval, with limited exceptions.”

    Intel was supposed to receive up to $10.86 billion in federal funding to expand its chip manufacturing business in the US as part of the CHIPS Act. By agreeing to this deal, Tan is likely trying to make sure that funding still goes through, one of several drastic moves to keep Intel afloat. Tan assumed the title of CEO following Pat Gelsinger’s sudden retirement in 2024. Since taking over, he’s already committed to cutting Intel’s workforce by 20 percent. Even with lower costs and guaranteed investment, the company’s future is still uncertain: Intel is reportedly struggling to make its next-gen Panther Lake chips at scale.

    The Trump administration says it won’t seek similar equity deals with other recipients of CHIPS act funding. That hasn’t stopped them from making other equally unprecedented financial arrangements. NVIDIA and AMD reportedly struck a deal with the US government that gives the companies the ability to export products to China in exchange for 15 percent of their profits.

    Update, August 22, 6:20PM ET: This story was updated after publish with more information on the deal from Intel, and the headline was changed to the dollar figure, rather than the previously stated “10 percent” amount. A section quoting US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick saying that the stake was non-voting was also ammended to reflect the final details of the deal.

    [ad_2]

    Ian Carlos Campbell

    Source link

  • The US government is taking a 10 percent stake in Intel

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump says the US government is taking a 10 percent stake in chip maker Intel. Trump shared the news during a press conference on Friday, though an official announcement is still forthcoming, Reuters reports. News of a plan to convert Intel’s previously promised CHIPS Act funding into equity in the company was first reported earlier in August.

    A meeting between Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan and Trump following the President’s call for Tan to resign seems to be the source of the deal. “He walked in wanting to keep his job and he ended up giving us 10 billion dollars for the United States. So we picked up 10 billion,” Trump shared during the press conference.

    Based on Intel’s current share price, a 10 percent stake would be worth around $10 billion, Reuters says. It’s important to note that the government investing in Intel is not the same thing as receiving free money, it’s the exact opposite. The government’s stake in Intel will also be non-voting, according to earlier comments from US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.

    Intel was supposed to receive up to $10.86 billion in federal funding to expand its chip manufacturing business in the US as part of the CHIPS Act. By agreeing to this deal, Tan is likely trying to make sure that funding still goes through, one of several drastic moves to keep Intel afloat. Tan assumed the title of CEO following Pat Gelsinger’s sudden retirement in 2024. Since taking over, he’s already committed to cutting Intel’s workforce by 20 percent. Even with lower costs and guaranteed investment, the company’s future is still uncertain: Intel is reportedly struggling to make its next-gen Panther Lake chips at scale.

    The Trump administration says it won’t seek similar equity deals with other recipients of CHIPS Act funding. That hasn’t stopped them from making other equally unprecedented financial arrangements. NVIDIA and AMD reportedly struck a deal with the US government that gives the companies the ability to export products to China in exchange for 15 percent of their profits.

    [ad_2]

    Ian Carlos Campbell

    Source link

  • Canada Will Match US Tariff Exemptions Under USMCA Trade Pact – KXL

    [ad_1]

    TORONTO (AP) — Canada is dropping retaliatory tariffs to match U.S. tariff exemptions for goods covered under the United States-Mexico-Canada trade pact.

    Prime Minister Mark Carney said Canada will include the carve-out that the U.S. has on Canadian goods under the 2020 free trade deal that shields the vast majority of goods from the punishing duties.

    The move is designed to reset trade talks between the two countries.

    The USMCA is up for review in 2026, and Carney called the trade pact a unique advantage for Canada at a time when it is clear that the U.S. is charging for access to its market.

    More about:

    [ad_2]

    Grant McHill

    Source link

  • Desantis vows to continue work on Alligator Alcatraz despite ruling ordering a halt

    [ad_1]

    The aftershock of U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams’ is sending waves through the environmental and political realms as the future of Alligator Alcatraz, at this point, is unsure.

    But less than a day after the ruling halting operations, Gov. Ron DeSantis said the state will not be deterred.

    “We had a judge try to upset the apple cart with respect to our deportation and detainee center in south Florida at Alligator Alcatraz,” Desantis said at a news conference in Panama City on Aug. 22. “This is not something that was not expected. This was a judge that was not going to give us a fair shake.”

    Williams put in place a temporary injunction that says DeSantis and President Donald Trump should pack up all the trucks, bunks, tarps, fences and people and vacate the property.

    DeSantis response was no surprise to the opposition.

    “This is a win for the environment,” said Betty Osecola, an influential member of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. “And though the preliminary injunction was issued, we still need to take a stand to continue this fight because we know very well the state and the federal government are going to continue in their efforts in appealing this decision.”

    The Miccosukee reservation is just a few miles from the Alligator Alcatraz site, which was formly a flight training center operated by Miami-Dade County.

    To make matters more complicated, the facility is actually in Collier County, where commissioners have vowed to stay out of this divisive matter.

    Stars can be seen over the Everglades on Wednesday, July 30, 2025. Photographed from Burns Lake Campground looking east towards Alligator Alcatraz and the east coast of Florida. The Big Cypress Wildlife Management Area is considered a dark skies designated location. Some are concerned about the construction of Alligator Alcatraz, saying that it is causing light pollution.

    Alligator Alcatraz is a controversial immigration detention center at the enterface of the Big Cypress National Preserve and Everglades National Park.

    Construction started in June, after Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced the detention center on social media.

    More: Judge tells Trump admin to pack up Alligator Alcatraz, leave the Everglades, Big Cypress

    The center wasn’t the idea of a planning staff, a review committee or even the Department of Homeland Security.

    And Alligator Alcatraz didn’t go through the typical review process as DeSantis declared a state of emergency to avoid staff review and public comment periods.

    “You have people that are in the country that have already been ordered to be removed by the system,” DeSantis said. “And the previous administration didn’t want to do anything.”

    Earlier Aug. 22, Alex Lanfranconi, the governor’s communications director, released a statement: “The deportations will continue until morale improves.”

    The ruling stems from a June 27 lawsuit filed by Friends of the Everglades, the Center for Biological Diversity, and joined by the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. The defendants in the case include the Florida Division of Emergency Management, the Department of Homeland Security, ICE, and Miami-Dade County.

    “So, let’s celebrate this win today, but let’s stay determined for that fight for the long haul,” Osceola said.

    DeSantis remained committed to the plan.

    “We’re in the position of leading the state efforts to help the Trump administration remove these illegal aliens not just from Florida but from our country,” he said.

    The other Alligator Alcatraz lawsuit

    In another case focusing on plaintiffs legal and civil rights, U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz ruled Aug. 18 the matter should move to a different court while also declaring part of the lawsuit moot.

    At the heart of the case was whether the government had violated detainees’ rights to due process and legal counsel. Civil rights attorneys had said the remote Everglades facility made it nearly impossible for immigrants to speak confidentially with lawyers or even find out which immigration court can hear their cases.

    The plaintiffs’ attorneys filed suit in the Southern District of Florida, which includes Miami-Dade County, though state and federal officials argued that it should have been filed in the Middle District of Florida, which includes Collier County.

    More: Alligator Alcatraz starting to take shape on the edge of sacred ceremony grounds

    In his 47-page order, Ruiz agreed, transferring the case to the middle district. He also dismissed the immigration-court allegations in the lawsuit, saying they were moot after a federal decision that judges at Krome North Processing Service Center would handle the detainees’ cases.

    The case now heads to “a sister court in the Middle District of Florida to reach the merits of plaintiffs’ remaining claims under the First Amendment,” Ruiz wrote.

    DeSantis said the most recent ruling won’t affect operations.

    “This is not going to deter us. “We’re going to continue the deportations and this mission,” he said.

    Breaking News and Visuals Editor Stacey Henson contributed to this report.

    This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Alligator Alcatraz will continue operations says Florida governor

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk’s new political party isn’t happening

    [ad_1]

    A political party proposed by tech billionaire Elon Musk is now being mothballed as he looks to preserve the GOP voter base and focus more on his companies, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal.

    In late June, during a feud with President Donald Trump, Musk called for a new political party “that cares about the people.”

    In July, Musk then announced “the America Party“, which he hoped would appeal to voters disillusioned by Democrats and Republicans. But sources close to Musk now say he is “quietly pumping the brakes” on the new political party, per the WSJ.

    According to the newspaper, Mark Cuban, a billionaire and a past supporter of the idea, hasn’t spoken to Musk about the party in months. Furthermore, Musk’s own political advisors have not talked to him about the party, either

    Musk is reportedly “reluctant to alienate powerful Republicans” by starting his party, hoping to stay in the good graces of the Republican Party. In addition, Musk is not looking to “siphon” voters away from the GOP in the 2026 midterm elections.  

    Since the summer feud between Musk and Trump, Vice President JD Vance has made overtures aimed at bringing the Tesla CEO back into the MAGA movement, despite a “complicated relationship with the White House.”

    Start your day with essential news from Salon.
    Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

    “I really think it’s a mistake for him to break from the president,” Vance said in an interview with the far-right website Gateway Pundit. “So my hope is that by the time of the midterms, he’s kind of come back into the fold. But I don’t know if he would take my call right now.” Vance added that he hoped that Musk’s return would bring “things back to normal.”

    Vance acknowledged that Musk “did help us a lot” in getting Trump elected president in 2024. Indeed, Musk spent over $250 million on efforts to elect Trump, becoming an early heavy-hitter in the administration by heading the controversial Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, overseeing cuts in foreign aid that may have already resulted in thousands of deaths.

    The post Elon Musk’s new political party isn’t happening appeared first on Salon.com.

    [ad_2]

    Source link