ReportWire

Tag: Trump administration

  • Home Depot says it will raise some prices because of tariffs

    [ad_1]

    (CNN) — Home Depot said Tuesday that some of its prices could be going up because of the cost of tariffs.

    Until now, America’s largest home improvement retailer has limited what it has said about the impact of tariffs on its prices. But after reporting quarterly results Tuesday, CFO Richard McPhail said Home Depot would have to implement some price increases as a result of the Trump administration’s taxes on imports.

    “For some imported goods, tariff rates are significantly higher today than they were at this time last quarter,” he said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal that was confirmed by the company to CNN. “So as you would expect, there will be modest price movement in some categories, but it won’t be broad based.”

    Three months ago, when asked about the impact of tariffs on pricing, the company said it would not speculate on its price plans, but that tariffs might lead it to no longer offer some items.

    Home Depot said that a little less than half of its inventory comes from suppliers outside the United States. The company has previously said it was looking to diversify its supply base so that no foreign country supplied more than 10% of its goods.

    Despite sales in the quarter jumping 5% from last year, Home Depot’s net income slipped 0.2% over the same time period due to higher operating costs. The company believes its full-year earnings per share will fall 2% as economic uncertainty and high interest rates are keeping many consumers from moving forward with major home renovation plans.

    “Certainly some relief on mortgage rates in particular could help,” CEO Ted Decker said on the earnings call. Mortgage rates have spent most of the year stuck just under 7%.

    “When we talk to our customers… both consumers and pros, the number one reason for deferring the large project is general economic uncertainty. That is larger than prices of projects, of labor availability. By a wide margin, economic uncertainty is number one,” he added.

    But company executives said Home Depot is confident it will see those large projects appear at some point in the future, driving better results.

    “Our customers tell us the rate environment is giving them pause on larger remodeling projects,” McPhail said. “Our pros… say that their customers tell them they’re deferring projects. They’re not canceling projects. Home improvement demand persists. And so our job is to position ourselves to be ready for that.”

    [ad_2]

    Chris Isidore and CNN

    Source link

  • Deadline for Boston’s response to federal government on immigration enforcement

    [ad_1]

    Tuesday is the federal government’s deadline for so called sanctuary jurisdictions, including Boston, to submit a plan of compliance with the White House’s immigration policies.

    Boston Mayor Michelle Wu says the city will send a response — but that’s not to say it will end its sanctuary policies. Consequences from the Trump Administration if Boston does not fall in line remain unclear. However, the Department of Justice has threatened to pull federal funding and even file civil suits if the city does not comply.

    Earlier this month, U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi sent letters to 35 sanctuary jurisdictions, including Boston, demanding a response by Aug. 19 explaining how they will comply with the DOJ order to eliminate laws that impede federal actions — namely on immigration.

    In other words, the Trump Administration wants places like Boston to have its police work more in concert with ICE, by honoring ICE detainers. This means having local police to hold someone, even if that person is otherwise eligible to be released. That would give federal agents time to show up to a jail or court and taken them into custody.

    The Department of Justice has given a deadline of Tuesday for dozens of sanctuary jurisdictions to comply with the federal government’s immigration crackdown.

    The issue is, there is a state Supreme Judicial Court ruling that prohibits police in Massachusetts from holding someone on civil immigration detainers.

    Wu did not explicitly say how she plans to respond to Bondi’s letter, but that response will come.

    “Unlike the Trump administration Boston follows the law and we will respond and have more to share on that when we finalize our response,” Wu said. “Boston is a home for everyone, we will never back down from who we are and what we stand for.”

    Also on the DOJ list are the states of Connecticut, Vermont and Rhode Island. About a dozen sanctuary towns and cities in the Bay State were not named by the AG. They will likely be looking to Boston as an example of how to respond.

    Wu is expected to address the content of her response later Tuesday morning.

    [ad_2]

    Oscar Margain

    Source link

  • Restaurant reservations are down in DC following federal takeover of police force – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump claimed that his recent takeover of the D.C. police has made residents feel safer, leading to a surge in restaurant visits. However, data contradicts this, showing a significant drop in reservations compared to last year.

    President Donald Trump said on Monday that since his announcement to take over the D.C. police department, people are now more comfortable going to dinner in the District. WTOP is digging into the data that shows restaurant reservations are actually significantly down compared to this time last year.

    “People that haven’t gone out to dinner in Washington, D.C. in two years, are going out to dinner, and the restaurants, the last two days, were busier than they’ve been in a long time,” Trump said Monday from the White House.

    But according to the booking site OpenTable, reservations have plummeted since this time last year. The site showed that reservations on Saturday and Sunday were both down around 20% from last year.

    Trump boasted the opposite, adding that he’s had people calling him saying, “Sir, I want to thank you. My wife and I went out to dinner last night for the first time in four years, and Washington, D.C. is safe. And you did that in four days!”

    Restaurant reservations in D.C. dropped 27% on Tuesday; 31% on Wednesday; 29% on Thursday; 25% on Friday; 20% on Saturday; and 22% on Sunday compared to last year’s reservations, according to OpenTable.

    “I’m definitely concerned about it,” said Shawn Townsend, president and CEO of the Restaurant Association of Metropolitan Washington. “This is about supporting families who rely on these restaurants to pay their rent, to pay tuition, to send their kids to college. This is more about that, and I want to make it clear that our industry is resilient.”

    Townsend told WTOP the number of restaurant diners are usually low this time of year, but these numbers are especially low. He encourages people to go out for D.C.’s annual Summer Restaurant Week, adding that crime this year has been down and the restaurants are ready for diners.

    “The business community, we have all been working diligently with MPD on bringing crime down due to the surge in 2023. Is our city perfect? Absolutely not. However, we have made great strides. Crime is down. Our city is safer because of the work that’s been put in,” Townsend said.

    He said they’re hopeful that Summer Restaurant Week will bring in business with a record 380 restaurants participating. It runs Aug. 18-24.

    “If you want to send a message to the administration and to the country, support your local restaurants this week, and for the next couple of weeks, while we have this increased presence of federal agents in our city — that’s the strongest way to send a message,” he 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

  • Trump reignites his push to ban mail-in voting after meeting with Putin

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump said Monday that he will “lead a movement” to end mail-in balloting in elections. The Constitution, Congress and the states figure to have their say, too.

    The issue has re-emerged as a fixation for Trump when the most pressing business before him is his effort to mediate a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine. It appears to have been rekindled, or at least stoked, by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who reinforced Trump’s unsubstantiated view that postal ballots “rigged” the 2020 election, at a summit Friday in Alaska.

    In an interview with Fox News host Bret Baier on Friday, Trump relayed that “one of the most interesting things” Putin told him during the summit had to do with the unreliability of mail-in voting.

    “He said: ‘Your election was rigged because you have mail-in voting. … It’s impossible to have mail-in voting and have honest elections,’” Trump said, adding that Putin told him “no country” has mail-in voting.

    It’s false that the United States is the only country with vote-by-mail. Other countries, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, also do. Russia has been heavily criticized, including by the U.S. government, for not having free and fair elections.

    Trump then vowed Monday on his Truth Social platform to issue an executive order aimed at banning vote-by-mail.

    “Remember, the States are merely an ‘agent’ for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes,” Trump wrote. “They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do.”

    He also brought it up when he met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy later in the day, saying, “Mail-in ballots are corrupt.”

    But Trump faces high legal and political hurdles to changing the laws governing federal elections: the Constitution, federal and state statutes, the popularity of absentee balloting and the GOP’s success in using mail-in votes in key swing states, such as Trump’s home state, Florida.

    The Constitution vests the power for choosing the “times, places and manner” of House and Senate elections in state legislatures, with Congress and the president retaining the right to pass laws overriding them. States also have the authority, under the Constitution, to determine how presidential electors are selected. Federal law requires states to accept mailed ballots from Americans living overseas, including veterans.

    “I don’t want to presuppose what might be in the executive order, but I think it’s pretty clear that the times, places and manners of elections are set by the state. That’s right there in the Constitution,” said Matt Weil, vice president of the democracy program at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

    Changing those “requires an act of Congress,” Weil said. And doing that would be no small feat when Democrats can block legislation in the Senate.

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement, “Senate Democrats will make sure that any and every measure that would make it even more difficult for Americans to vote will be dead on arrival in the Senate and will continue to fight to protect our democracy.”

    The Republican National Committee hinted at the power of Congress in a statement Monday supporting Trump’s plan.

    “Under his leadership and direction, the RNC is continuing to build upon our historic election integrity efforts from the successful 2024 election cycle, and we will be ready to help implement any and all changes made to our nation’s election laws by the President and Congress,” RNC spokesperson Kiersten Pels said. “The Republican Election Integrity motto is simple: we want to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat.”

    Beyond those challenges, many Republicans say Trump is fishing in a politically toxic pond that is better left alone.

    “From a pure tactics standpoint, it is not helpful,” said a former Trump campaign official who is working on midterm campaigns.

    In his failed 2020 re-election bid, Trump discouraged Republicans from voting early and as absentees, and many of his allies believe that cost him votes. By contrast, in 2024, his advisers persuaded him to embrace those practices on the premise that he could “bank” votes early and not have to spend money trying to mobilize people who had already cast ballots.

    Trump’s emerging push is destined to fail, the former campaign official said, and it could tamp down Republican turnout in the process.

    “It discourages our use” of mail-in voting, which “is going to exist,” he said, adding that “this is where he starts getting into conspiratorial spaces where independent voters are like ‘What? What is he talking about?’”

    There are several types of voter fraud that make headlines every election – but how common is voter fraud really? Here’s what you need to know.

    Trump’s White House recently hosted a group of secretaries of state to discuss “our ongoing commitment to election integrity,” said Ben Kindel, a spokesperson for Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican.

    While LaRose still backs Ohio’s mail-in balloting laws, Kindel said, “we look forward to reviewing the details of what the president is proposing. … Changes to Ohio’s voting process require a vote of the General Assembly, so I’m sure we’ll be talking with them as well.”

    Trump’s aversion to absentee ballots is perhaps most striking because Republicans’ recent success in Florida elections — in Trump’s home state — has coincided with the state GOP’s mastery of mail-in voting. White House chief of staff Susie Wiles has been a longtime proponent of early voting in the state and helped Trump see the benefit to him across swing states in 2024.

    Wiles and several other White House officials did not respond to requests for comment.

    In Florida, Trump’s push to crack down on mail ballots has hampered Republicans’ decadeslong effort to build their mail programs. Since they began developing a mail-in program in the 1990s, Republicans in the state have dominated their Democratic counterparts using the method Trump detests.

    But his message, that the practice is inherently corrupt, has altered the landscape in Florida, allowing Democrats to ramp up their efforts and, for the first time, take an edge in vote-by-mail ballots — even as Trump won the state in 2020 and 2024.

    “For years, you had to build into turnout plans the fact that the GOP would have a big advantage in vote by mail,” Steve Schale, a longtime Florida Democratic operative who was an early advocate of his party’s better using mail ballots, said in a message to NBC News. “Using VBM to drive their sporadic voters to vote. We did counter first by driving people to vote in person early, then VBM.”

    The slipping of Republicans voting-by-mail advantage has dismayed some of the state’s veteran Republicans.

    “There was a time when Republicans owned and relied on voting by mail,” said longtime Republican operative Mac Stipanovich, who helped build Florida’s vote-by-mail program but left the GOP over disagreements with Trump. Stipanovich, who was chief of staff to Republican former Florida Gov. Bob Martinez, said the idea of expanding vote-by-mail to make it easier for all voters to cast ballots is “anathema to the Trump Republican Party, in which voter suppression is dressed up as preventing voter fraud.”

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has tried to follow Trump’s call to crack down on vote-by-mail in the state, signing sweeping changes to such laws in recent years. They worked as intended. During the 2020 presidential campaign, 4.3 million mail ballots were cast in Florida, a number that dropped to 3 million during last year’s presidential contest.

    Some of the changes have concerned even Republican election officials, notably a requirement that voters renew their vote-by-mail ballot requests each election cycle.

    “That’s a major thing,” Republican former Florida Sen. Alan Hays, who is now the election supervisor in Lake County, told a Republican-led state legislative committee in February. “Our theory is if they had the luxury of checking a box in that general election return ballot that said, ‘Please keep my vote by mail request valid,’ then we could have continued to send them their vote-by-mail ballot for the special election.”

    Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd, a DeSantis appointee and Trump supporter, did not reply to a request for comment about Trump’s renewed push to crack down on voting by mail.

    “Mail-in voting is good when the rules are applied,” a second former Trump campaign official said. “I just think this is stupid.”

    Democrats responded harshly to Trump’s Truth Social post, even as they waited to see the actual proposal. Connecticut Secretary of State Jena Griswold said she is ready to go to court to block him, if necessary.

    “Donald Trump is trying to grab power ahead of the 2026 Election and says he will ban vote by mail,” Griswold said. “This is a direct attack on democracy. States oversee elections, not Trump. We will challenge any unlawful executive order and will beat this unconstitutional attempt to disenfranchise millions of Americans.”

    Oregon conducts its elections entirely by mail, and it was the first state to hold a presidential election by mail. Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read emphasized that voter fraud is “extremely rare.”

    He said he believes Trump “is actively working to corrupt our elections. If he had any inclination to actually understand or care about the American people, he’d know that mail-in voting is really the best way to protect everybody’s right to vote, and that’s especially true for rural folks, for elderly people and for people who work for an hourly wage.”

    Read also pointed to the states’ constitutional role in deciding how to conduct elections, adding, “I’m going to protect the rights of Oregonians and the rights of the state to choose how we elect our representatives. This is a real threat.”

    Some Trump allies say no one should be surprised by his desire to stop mail-in balloting, as he has long decried the practice of voting in any way other than in person on Election Day.

    “It’s the same position the president has always held,” a person familiar with the Trump camp’s thinking said. “That being said, if mail-in ballots still exist come 2026, we will use them and win.”

    Julie Tsirkin, Inshara Ali, Bridget Bowman and Gabe Gutierrez contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Jonathan Allen, Matt Dixon and Henry J. Gomez | NBC News

    Source link

  • 20 states, including California, sue DOJ to stop immigration requirements on crime victim funds

    [ad_1]

    A coalition of attorneys general from 20 states and Washington, D.C., is asking a federal judge to stop the U.S. Department of Justice from withholding federal funds earmarked for crime victims if states don’t cooperate with the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts.The lawsuit filed Monday in Rhode Island federal court seeks to block the Justice Department from enforcing conditions that would cut funding to a state or subgrantee if it refuses to honor civil immigration enforcement requests, denies U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers access to facilities or fails to provide advance notice of release dates of individuals possibly wanted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement because of their immigration status.The lawsuit asks that the conditions be thrown out, arguing that the administration and the agency are overstepping their constitutional and administrative authority.The lawsuit also argues that the requirements are not permitted or outlined in the Victims of Crime Act, known as VOCA, and would interfere with policies created to ensure victims and witnesses report crimes without fear of deportation.“These people did not ask for this status as a crime victim. They don’t breakdown neatly across partisan lines, but they share one common trait, which is that they’ve suffered an unimaginable trauma,” New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said during a video news conference Monday, calling the administration’s threat to withhold funds “the most heinous act” he’s seen in politics.The federal conditions were placed on VOCA funding, which provides more than a billion dollars annually to states for victims compensation programs and grants that fund victims assistance organizations. VOCA funding comes entirely from fines and penalties in federal court cases, not from tax dollars.Every state and territory has a victims compensation program that follows federal guidelines, but largely is set up under state law to provide financial help to crime victims, including medical expense reimbursement, paying for crime scene cleanup, counseling or helping with funeral costs for homicide victims. VOCA covers the cost of about 75% of state compensation program awards.The funds are also used to pay for other services, including testing rape kits, funding grants to domestic violence recovery organizations, trauma recovery centers and more.Advocates and others argue that the system needs to protect victims regardless of their immigration status and ensure that reporting a crime does not lead to deportation threats. They also say that marginalized communities, such as newly arrived immigrants, are more likely to be crime targets.“The federal government is attempting to use crime victim funds as a bargaining chip to force states into doing its bidding on immigration enforcement,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, who also joined the lawsuit, said in a statement Monday. “These grants were created to help survivors heal and recover, and we will fight to ensure they continue to serve that purpose … We will not be bullied into abandoning any of our residents.”The Associated Press left a message seeking comment from a DOJ spokesperson Monday afternoon.President Donald Trump’s administration has sought to withhold or pull back other federal funding or grant funding midstream, saying awardees and programs no longer agree with its priorities. In April, it canceled about $800 million in DOJ grants, some of which were awarded to victims service and survivor organizations.And in June, states filed a lawsuit over added requirements in Violence Against Women Act funding that mandated applicants agree not to promote “gender ideology,” or run diversity, equity and inclusion programs or prioritize people in the country illegally.Several attorneys general said the VOCA conditions appear to be another way the administration is targeting so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, though there is no clear definition of what a sanctuary state or city is.The Trump administration earlier this month released an updated list of states, cities and counties it considers sanctuary jurisdictions. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in the August announcement that the department would “continue bringing litigation against sanctuary jurisdictions and work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to eradicate these harmful policies around the country.”As of Monday afternoon attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin — all Democrats — had signed on to the lawsuit. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    A coalition of attorneys general from 20 states and Washington, D.C., is asking a federal judge to stop the U.S. Department of Justice from withholding federal funds earmarked for crime victims if states don’t cooperate with the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts.

    The lawsuit filed Monday in Rhode Island federal court seeks to block the Justice Department from enforcing conditions that would cut funding to a state or subgrantee if it refuses to honor civil immigration enforcement requests, denies U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers access to facilities or fails to provide advance notice of release dates of individuals possibly wanted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement because of their immigration status.

    This content is imported from YouTube.
    You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

    The lawsuit asks that the conditions be thrown out, arguing that the administration and the agency are overstepping their constitutional and administrative authority.

    The lawsuit also argues that the requirements are not permitted or outlined in the Victims of Crime Act, known as VOCA, and would interfere with policies created to ensure victims and witnesses report crimes without fear of deportation.

    “These people did not ask for this status as a crime victim. They don’t breakdown neatly across partisan lines, but they share one common trait, which is that they’ve suffered an unimaginable trauma,” New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said during a video news conference Monday, calling the administration’s threat to withhold funds “the most heinous act” he’s seen in politics.

    The federal conditions were placed on VOCA funding, which provides more than a billion dollars annually to states for victims compensation programs and grants that fund victims assistance organizations. VOCA funding comes entirely from fines and penalties in federal court cases, not from tax dollars.

    Every state and territory has a victims compensation program that follows federal guidelines, but largely is set up under state law to provide financial help to crime victims, including medical expense reimbursement, paying for crime scene cleanup, counseling or helping with funeral costs for homicide victims. VOCA covers the cost of about 75% of state compensation program awards.

    The funds are also used to pay for other services, including testing rape kits, funding grants to domestic violence recovery organizations, trauma recovery centers and more.

    Advocates and others argue that the system needs to protect victims regardless of their immigration status and ensure that reporting a crime does not lead to deportation threats. They also say that marginalized communities, such as newly arrived immigrants, are more likely to be crime targets.

    “The federal government is attempting to use crime victim funds as a bargaining chip to force states into doing its bidding on immigration enforcement,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, who also joined the lawsuit, said in a statement Monday. “These grants were created to help survivors heal and recover, and we will fight to ensure they continue to serve that purpose … We will not be bullied into abandoning any of our residents.”

    The Associated Press left a message seeking comment from a DOJ spokesperson Monday afternoon.

    President Donald Trump’s administration has sought to withhold or pull back other federal funding or grant funding midstream, saying awardees and programs no longer agree with its priorities. In April, it canceled about $800 million in DOJ grants, some of which were awarded to victims service and survivor organizations.

    And in June, states filed a lawsuit over added requirements in Violence Against Women Act funding that mandated applicants agree not to promote “gender ideology,” or run diversity, equity and inclusion programs or prioritize people in the country illegally.

    Several attorneys general said the VOCA conditions appear to be another way the administration is targeting so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, though there is no clear definition of what a sanctuary state or city is.

    The Trump administration earlier this month released an updated list of states, cities and counties it considers sanctuary jurisdictions. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in the August announcement that the department would “continue bringing litigation against sanctuary jurisdictions and work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to eradicate these harmful policies around the country.”

    As of Monday afternoon attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin — all Democrats — had signed on to the lawsuit.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump promised ‘reciprocal’ tariffs. The numbers tell a different story.

    [ad_1]

    For months on the campaign trail and after taking office, President Donald Trump promised that his tariff policies would be based on a simple principle: reciprocity.

    “Whatever they tax us, we will tax them,” Trump told a joint session of Congress in March, outlining plans for higher tariffs on imports from much of the world. When some of those tariff rates were unveiled in early April—before being paused, amended, altered, and in some cases finally imposed—the president reiterated that point. “They’re reciprocal—so whatever they charge us, we charge them,” Trump said.

    The White House has dropped that talking point in recent months. Even so, the executive order that invoked emergency powers to impose those tariffs still promises that they will be “reciprocal.” And in courts where the Trump administration is defending the president’s use of those expansive (and possibly unconstitutional) powers, the administration’s attorneys continue to refer to that set of tariffs as the “reciprocal” tariffs—to distinguish them from tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico that were imposed in February for different reasons.

    So are the tariffs actually reciprocal? Not even close.

    Consider Switzerland. Last year, the average Swiss tariff on U.S. goods was a minuscule 0.2 percent, while the U.S. charged an average tariff of 1.4 percent on goods imported from Switzerland.

    To make trade with Switzerland “reciprocal,” then, Trump would have had to lower American tariffs on Swiss goods. In fact, he’d have to lower them even more, because in January the Swiss government abolished all of its tariffs on industrial goods from America—an arrangement that Swiss officials said would allow more than 99 percent of American items into the country duty-free.

    Trump responded to that by imposing a staggering 39 percent tariff on imports from Switzerland. This is reciprocity?

    The Swiss tariffs are where the Trump administration’s claim of reciprocity is most disconnected from reality, but it is hardly the only example.

    Singapore does not charge any tariffs on imports from the United States. Nevertheless, Trump’s 10 percent baseline tariff applies to anything that Americans want to purchase from individuals or businesses in Singapore. The average tariff charged by the European Union on American goods is a scant 1.7 percent, but imports from there will now face a 15 percent tariff here. Vietnam charges an average tariff of less than 3 percent on American goods, but Vietnamese goods will face a 20 percent tariff when coming into the U.S.—and that’s after Vietnam negotiated with Trump to lower what had been a 46 percent rate announced in April.

    In all, about 80 percent of the Trump administration’s supposedly “reciprocal” tariffs are higher than the tariffs charged by those countries on American goods, according to a new analysis from the Cato Institute.

    “This revelation is more than just a rhetorical gotcha: tariff advocates, including Trump himself, have long justified new US tariffs on the grounds that they were needed to balance foreign tariffs, which are supposedly quite high, on American goods,” write Scott Lincicome and Alfredo Carrillo Obregon, the co-authors of the Cato analysis. “Overall, the data further demonstrate that US tariffs today are about protectionism, with ‘fairness’ and other buzzwords simply a cover for achieving it.”

    There’s nothing fair about charging Americans higher taxes in an attempt to restrict global trade. And there’s nothing reciprocal about it at all.

    [ad_2]

    Eric Boehm

    Source link

  • Inaccurate, impossible: Experts knock new Trump plan to collect college admissions data

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump wants to collect more admissions data from colleges and universities to make sure they’re complying with a 2023 Supreme Court decision that ended race-conscious affirmative action. And he wants that data now. 

    But data experts and higher education scholars warn that any new admissions data is likely to be inaccurate, impossible to interpret and ultimately misused by policymakers. That’s because Trump’s own policies have left the statistics agency inside the Education Department with a skeleton staff and not enough money, expertise or time to create this new dataset. 

    The department already collects data on enrollment from every institution of higher education that participates in the federal student loan program. The results are reported through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). But in an Aug. 7 memorandum, Trump directed the Education Department, which he sought to close in March, to expand that task and provide “transparency” into how some 1,700 colleges that do not admit everyone are making their admissions decisions. And he gave Education Secretary Linda McMahon just 120 days to get it done. 

    Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.

    Expanding data collection on applicants is not a new idea. The Biden administration had already ordered colleges to start reporting race and ethnicity data to the department this fall in order to track changes in diversity in postsecondary education. But in a separate memorandum to the head of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), McMahon asked for even more information, including high school grades and college entrance exam scores, all broken down by race and gender.  

    Bryan Cook, director of higher education policy at the Urban Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C., called the 120-day timeline “preposterous” because of the enormous technical challenges. For example, IPEDS has never collected high school GPAs. Some schools use a weighted 5.0 scale, giving extra points for advanced classes, and others use an unweighted 4.0 scale, which makes comparisons messy. Other issues are equally thorny. Many schools no longer require applicants to report standardized test scores and some no longer ask them about race so the data that Trump wants doesn’t exist for those colleges. 

    “You’ve got this effort to add these elements without a mechanism with which to vet the new variables, as well as a system for ensuring their proper implementation,” said Cook. “You would almost think that whoever implemented this didn’t know what they were doing.” 

    Cook has helped advise the Education Department on the IPEDS data collection for 20 years and served on technical review panels, which are normally convened first to recommend changes to the data collection. Those panels were disbanded earlier this year, and there isn’t one set up to vet Trump’s new admissions data proposal.

    Cook and other data experts can’t figure out how a decimated education statistics agency could take on this task. All six NCES employees who were involved in IPEDS data collection were fired in March, and there are only three employees left out of 100 at NCES, which is run by an acting commissioner who also has several other jobs. 

    An Education Department official, who did not want to be named, denied that no one left inside the Education Department has IPEDS experience. The official said that staff inside the office of the chief data officer, which is separate from the statistics agency, have a “deep familiarity with IPEDS data, its collection and use.” Former Education Department employees told me that some of these employees have experience in analyzing the data, but not in collecting it.

    In the past, there were as many as a dozen employees who worked closely with RTI International, a scientific research institute, which handles most of the IPEDS data collection work. 

    Technical review eliminated

    Of particular concern is that RTI’s $10 million annual contract to conduct the data collection had been slashed approximately in half by the Department of Government Efficiency, also known as DOGE, according to two former employees, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation. Those severe budget cuts eliminated the technical review panels that vet proposed changes to IPEDS, and ended training for colleges and universities to submit data properly, which helped with data quality. RTI did not respond to my request to confirm the cuts or answer questions about the challenges it will face in expanding its work on a reduced budget and staffing.

    The Education Department did not deny that the IPEDS budget had been cut in half. “The RTI contract is focused on the most mission-critical IPEDS activities,” the Education Department official said. “The contract continues to include at least one task under which a technical review panel can be convened.”  

    Additional elements of the IPEDS data collection have also been reduced, including a contract to check data quality.

    Last week, the scope of the new task became more apparent. On Aug. 13, the administration released more details about the new admissions data it wants, describing how the Education Department is attempting to add a whole new survey to IPEDS, called the Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS), which will disaggregate all admissions data and most student outcome and financial aid data by race and gender. College will have to report on both undergraduate and graduate school admissions. The public has 60 days to comment, and the administration wants colleges to start reporting this data this fall. 

    Complex collection

    Christine Keller, executive director of the Association for Institutional Research, a trade group of higher education officials who collect and analyze data, called the new survey “one of the most complex IPEDS collections ever attempted.” 

    Traditionally, it has taken years to make much smaller changes to IPEDS, and universities are given a year to start collecting the new data before they are required to submit it. (Roughly 6,000 colleges, universities and vocational schools are required to submit data to IPEDS as a condition for their students to take out federal student loans or receive federal Pell Grants. Failure to comply results in fines and the threat of losing access to federal student aid.)

    Normally, the Education Department would reveal screenshots of data fields, showing what colleges would need to enter into the IPEDS computer system. But the department has not done that, and several of the data descriptions are ambiguous. For example, colleges will have to report test scores and GPA by quintile, broken down by race and ethnicity and gender. One interpretation is that a college would have to say how many Black male applicants, for example, scored above the 80th percentile on the SAT or the ACT. Another interpretation is that colleges would need to report the average SAT or ACT score of the top 20 percent of Black male applicants. 

    The Association for Institutional Research used to train college administrators on how to collect and submit data correctly and sort through confusing details — until DOGE eliminated that training. “The absence of comprehensive, federally funded training will only increase institutional burden and risk to data quality,” Keller said. Keller’s organization is now dipping into its own budget to offer a small amount of free IPEDS training to universities

    The Education Department is also requiring colleges to report five years of historical admissions data, broken down into numerous subcategories. Institutions have never been asked to keep data on applicants who didn’t enroll. 

    “It’s incredible they’re asking for five years of prior data,” said Jordan Matsudaira, an economist at American University who worked on education policy in the Biden and Obama administrations. “That will be square in the pandemic years when no one was reporting test scores.”

    ‘Misleading results’

    Matsudaira explained that IPEDS had considered asking colleges for more academic data by race and ethnicity in the past and the Education Department ultimately rejected the proposal. One concern is that slicing and dicing the data into smaller and smaller buckets would mean that there would be too few students and the data would have to be suppressed to protect student privacy. For example, if there were two Native American men in the top 20 percent of SAT scores at one college, many people might be able to guess who they were. And a large amount of suppressed data would make the whole collection less useful.

    Also, small numbers can lead to wacky results. For example, a small college could have only two Hispanic male applicants with very high SAT scores. If both were accepted, that’s a 100 percent admittance rate. If only 200 white women out of 400 with the same test scores were accepted, that would be only a 50 percent admittance rate. On the surface, that can look like both racial and gender discrimination. But it could have been a fluke. Perhaps both of those Hispanic men were athletes and musicians. The following year, the school might reject two different Hispanic male applicants with high test scores but without such impressive extracurriculars. The admissions rate for Hispanic males with high test scores would drop to zero. “You end up with misleading results,” said Matsudaira. 

    Reporting average test scores by race is another big worry. “It feels like a trap to me,” said Matsudaira. “That is mechanically going to give the administration the pretense of claiming that there’s lower standards of admission for Black students relative to white students when you know that’s not at all a correct inference.”

    The statistical issue is that there are more Asian and white students at the very high end of the SAT score distribution, and all those perfect 1600s will pull the average up for these racial groups. (Just like a very tall person will skew the average height of a group.) Even if a college has a high test score threshold that it applies to all racial groups and no one below a 1400 is admitted, the average SAT score for Black students will still be lower than that of white students. (See graphic below.) The only way to avoid this is to purely admit by test score and take only the students with the highest scores. At some highly selective universities, there are enough applicants with a 1600 SAT to fill the entire class. But no institution fills its student body by test scores alone. That could mean overlooking applicants with the potential to be concert pianists, star soccer players or great writers.

    The Average Score Trap

    This graphic by Kirabo Jackson, an economist at Northwestern University, depicts the problem of measuring racial discrimination though average test scores. Even for a university that admits all students above a certain cut score, the average score of one racial group (red) will be higher than the average score of the other group (blue). Source: graphic posted on Bluesky Social by Josh Goodman

    Admissions data is a highly charged political issue. The Biden administration originally spearheaded the collection of college admissions data by race and ethnicity. Democrats wanted to collect this data to show how the nation’s colleges and universities were becoming less diverse with the end of affirmative action. This data is slated to start this fall, following a full technical and procedural review. 

    Now the Trump administration is demanding what was already in the works, and adding a host of new data requirements — without following normal processes. And instead of tracking the declining diversity in higher education, Trump wants to use admissions data to threaten colleges and universities. If the new directive produces bad data that is easy to misinterpret, he may get his wish.

    Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595, jillbarshay.35 on Signal, or barshay@hechingerreport.org.

    This story about college admissions data was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    [ad_2]

    Jill Barshay

    Source link

  • Trump Admin Halts Visas For Wounded Gazans After Laura Loomer Complains

    [ad_1]

    The State Department announced on Saturday morning that it was halting all visitor visas to people coming in from Gaza to “conduct a full and thorough review of the process and procedures” which were being used to issue a “small” number of visas to those seeking medical care, according to a post on X from the federal agency.

    The move comes less than 17 hours after Laura Loomer, a far-right, anti-Muslim commentator close to President Donald Trump who has said she’s “pro-white nationalism,” complained online about Palestinians seeking medical care after being wounded by Israel’s continued offensive in the region.

    “How is allowing for Islamic immigrants to come into the US America First policy?” she asked on X. “The jew hating GAZA first idiots pretend to be America First but they are America last. They want the US to be flooded with Muslims pretending to be refugees so they can cancel out our votes,” she continued, adding, “I don’t care if they are kids. The US is full.”

    Two wounded Palestinian teenagers from Gaza are escorted in wheelchairs through the arrivals hall at Dulles International Airport in Washington on August 9, 2025. Far-right commentator Laura Loomer wants no more wounded Palestinians let in through temporary visas.

    MEHMET ESER/Getty Images

    Since Friday, Loomer has gone on a posting spree, claiming, without evidence, that an “Islamist” in the State Department “is supporting terrorism or fast tracking visas for Islamists.” After the department announced that they were halting visas to those fleeing violence in Gaza, Loomer was quick to thank Secretary Marco Rubio and take credit for his agency’s decision, writing that she “saved so many American citizens from being killed by pro-HAMAS jihadis.”

    According to an analysis by NBC News of monthly figures provided on the State Department’s website, the United States has “issued more than 3,800 B1/B2 visitor visas, which permit foreigners to seek medical treatment in the United States, to holders of the Palestinian Authority travel document so far in 2025.” In May, 640 visas were issued. The department’s numbers do not clarify how many of those visas were given to Gazans and how many people were from the West Bank in Palestine.

    The Palestinian people coming into the US to seek medical care are fleeing a worsening situation in Gaza and the West Bank—one funded by American tax dollars and supported by the Trump administration. The president has repeatedly talked about taking over the Gaza Strip, potentially by force, and turning it into the “Riviera of the Middle East.”

    “I think the potential in the Gaza Strip is unbelievable,” Trump said in a February press conference following a White House meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “We have an opportunity to do something that could be phenomenal,” he continued, adding, “we’ll do a job with it, too. We’ll own it.”

    Image may contain Negar Khan Clothing Coat Jacket Adult Person Accessories Glasses Wristwatch Face and Head

    Laura Loomer speaks to the media in New York City on April 15, 2024 before the Trump’s trial for fraud.

    David Dee Delgado/Getty Images

    [ad_2]

    Katie Herchenroeder

    Source link

  • Home Depots across L.A. become tense battleground in new phase of ICE raids

    [ad_1]

    While the number of immigration raids in Southern California have slowed in recent weeks, the focus on Home Depots appears to have intensified.

    Parking lots at those stores have become a key new battleground in the federal government’s evolving strategy of immigration enforcement.

    “Home Depot, whether they like it or not, they are the epicenter of raids,” said Pablo Alvarado, the co-executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, a group that represents the tens of thousands of day laborers working in L.A.

    On Thursday, agents moved on a Home Depot parking lot in Monrovia, sending laborers running, including a man who jumped a wall and onto the 210 Freeway, where he was fatally struck. A day prior, fear of a possible raid at a Ladera Ranch location sparked warnings across social media.

    Since a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting federal agents from targeting people solely based on their race, language, vocation, or location, the number of arrests in Southern California declined in July.

    But over the last two weeks, some higher-profile raids have returned, often taking place at Home Depot locations, where immigrant laborers congregate looking for work.

    The renewed burst of raids outside neighborhood Home Depots began Aug. 6, when a man drove a Penske moving truck to a Home Depot in Westlake and began soliciting day laborers when, all of a sudden, Border Patrol agents jumped out of the back of the vehicle and began to chase people down. Sixteen people were arrested.

    The raid — branded “Operation Trojan House” by the Trump administration — was showcased by government officials with footage from an embedded Fox News TV crew. “For those who thought Immigration enforcement had stopped in Southern California, think again,” acting U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli posted on X.

    The next day, federal agents raided a Home Depot in San Bernardino. Then, on Aug. 8, they conducted two raids outside a Home Depot in Van Nuys in what DHS described as a “targeted immigration raid” that resulted in the arrest of seven undocumented immigrants from Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico.

    Over the weekend, activists say, a Home Depot was targeted in Cypress Park and word spread that federal agents were at a Home Depot in Marina del Rey. On Monday, day laborers were nabbed outside a Home Depot in North Hollywood, and on Tuesday more were arrested at a Home Depot in Inglewood.

    “And it’s not just day laborers they are taking,” Alvarado added, noting that when federal agents descend on the hardware store’s parking lots, they question anyone who looks Latino or appears to be an immigrant and ask them about their papers. “They also get customers of Home Depot who look like day laborers, who speak Spanish.”

    The national hardware chain — whose parking lots have for decades been an unofficial gathering point for undocumented laborers hoping to get hired for a day of home repair or construction work — was one of the first sites of the L.A. raids in June that kicked off the Trump administration’s intense immigration enforcement across Southern California.

    Nearly 3,000 people across seven counties in L.A. were arrested in June as masked federal agents conducted roving patrols, carrying out a chaotic series of sweeps of street corners, bus stops, warehouses, farms, car washes and Home Depots. But the number of raids and arrests plummeted dramatically across L.A. in mid-July after the court order blocked federal agents across the region from targeting people unless they had reasonable suspicion they entered the country illegally.

    On Aug. 1, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a Trump administration request to lift the restraining order prohibiting roving raids. But within just a few days, federal agents were back, raiding the Westlake Home Depot.

    “Even though we’ve had two successful court decisions, the administration continues with their unconstitutional behavior coming and going to Home Depot stores,” L.A. Mayor Karen Bass said at a news conference Thursday. “They are violating” the temporary restraining order, she added.

    Advocates for undocumented immigrants question the legality of federal agents’ practices. In many cases, they say, agents are failing to show judicial warrants. They argue that the way agents are targeting day laborers and other brown-skinned people is illegal.

    “It’s clear racial profiling,” said Alvarado.

    The Department of Homeland Security did not answer questions from The Times about how many people have been arrested over the last week at Home Depots across L.A. or explain what why the agency has resumed raids outside hardware stores.

    After last Friday’s raids on Van Nuys, Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said four of the seven individuals arrested had criminal records, including driving under the influence of alcohol, disorderly conduct and failing to adhere to previous removal orders. She dismissed activists’ claims that the Trump administration was violating the temporary restraining order.

    “What makes someone a target for immigration enforcement is if they are illegally in the U.S. — not their skin color, race, or ethnicity,” McLaughlin said. “America’s brave men and women are removing murderers, MS-13 gang members, pedophiles, rapists — truly the worst of the worst from Golden State communities.”

    Activists say that federal agents are targeting Home Depots because they are hubs for a constant flow of day laborers — mostly Latino and many of whom are undocumented.

    “They know that at the Home Depot there will always be people who are day laborers, many of them undocumented,” said Ron Gochez, a member of the Unión del Barrio, a group that patrols neighborhoods to alert residents of immigration sweeps. “And so they figured it would be a much easier, faster and more effective way for them to kidnap people — just to go to the Home Depot.”

    Another reason the hardware store parking lots had become a focal point, Gochez said, is that they present a wide, open space to hunt people down.

    “There’s nowhere to run, nowhere to hide,” Gochez said. “And when some of the day laborers started running inside of the Home Depot stores, the agents literally have chased them down the aisles of the store.”

    In Los Angeles, pressure is mounting on Home Depot to speak out against the targeting of people outside their stores.

    “They haven’t spoken out; their customers are being taken away and they are not saying anything,” Alvarado said. “They haven’t issued a public condemnation of the fact that their customers have been abducted in their premises.”

    This is not the first time Home Depot has found itself in the center of a political firestorm.

    In 2019, the Atlanta-based company faced boycott campaigns after its co-founder Bernie Marcus, a Republican megadonor, announced his support for Trump’s reelection campaign. Back then, the chain tried to distance itself from its founder, noting that Marcus retired from the company in 2002 and did not speak on its behalf.

    But in a global city like L.A., where civic and political leaders are rallying against the raids and public schools have developed policies blocking federal agents from entering their premises, there are growing calls for the national hardware chain to develop consistent policies on raids, such as demanding federal agents have judicial warrants before descending on their lots.

    On Tuesday, a coalition of advocacy groups led a protest in MacArthur Park and urged Angelenos to support a 24-hour boycott of Home Depot and other businesses that they say have not stopped federal immigration agents from conducting raids in their parking lots or chasing people down in their stores.

    “We call them an accomplice to these raids, because there is no other location that’s been hit as much as they have,” Gochez said. “We think that Home Depot is being complicit. They’re actually, we think, in some way collaborating, whether directly or not.”

    Home Depot denies that it is working with federal agents or has advance notice of federal immigration enforcement activities.

    “That’s not true,” George Lane, manager of corporate communications for Home Depot, said in an email to The Times. “We aren’t notified that these activities are going to happen, and we aren’t involved in the operations. We’re required to follow all federal and local rules and regulations in every market where we operate.”

    Lane said Home Depot asked associates to report any suspected immigration enforcement operations immediately and not to engage for their own safety.

    “If associates feel uncomfortable after witnessing ICE activity,” he added, “we offer them the flexibility they need to take care of themselves and their families.”

    The targeting of day laborers outside L.A. Home Depots is particularly contentious because day laborers, primarily Latino men, have for decades represented an integral part of the Los Angeles labor force.

    Since the 1960s, day laborers have formed an informal labor market that has boosted this sprawling city, helping it expand, and in recent months they have played a pivotal role in rebuilding L.A. after the January firestorms tore through Pacific Palisades and Altadena destroying thousands of homes.

    “It appears they’re targeting and taking the very people rebuilding our cities,” Alvarado said. “Without migrant labor, both documented and undocumented, it’s impossible to try to rebuild Los Angeles.”

    In many L.A. neighborhoods, day laborers are such a constant, ingrained presence at Home Depots that the city’s Economic and Workforce Development Department sets up its resource centers for day laborers next to the stores.

    Day laborers are also a reason many customers come to Home Depot.

    “Day laborers are a part of their business model,” Alvarado said. “You come in, you get your materials, and then you get your helper.”

    Alvaro M. Huerta, the Director of Litigation and Advocacy of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, part of a coalition of groups suing Homeland Security over immigration raids in L.A., said the growing number of raids at Home Depot parking lots was “deeply troubling” and raised serious concerns that the federal government was continuing to violate the July temporary restraining order.

    “This looks a lot like it did before a temporary restraining order was in place,” Huerta said. “My sense is they feel they can justify raids at Home Depots more than roving raids.”

    Lawyers, Huerta said, were investigating the raids and asking some of the people taken into custody a series of questions: Did agents ever present a warrant? What kinds of questions did they ask? Did you feel like you were able to leave?

    “One of the things we’ve been arguing is that some of these situations are coercive,” Huerta said. “The government is saying, ‘No, we’re allowed to ask questions, and people can volunteer answers.’ But we’ve argued that in many of these cases, people don’t feel like they cannot speak.”

    Attorneys will likely present information about the arrests to court at a preliminary injunction hearing in September, Huerta said, as they press Trump administration attorneys for evidence that the arrests are targeted.

    Huerta said some of the people caught up in recent Home Depot raids were not even looking for work at the parking lot.

    One man, a 22-year-old who was getting gas across the street from a Home Depot last week, Huerta said, was detained even though he had special immigrant juvenile status as he was brought to the U.S. as a teen. The man had an asylum application pending, work authorization and no criminal history — and yet a week after he was arrested he was confined in Adelanto Detention Center.

    Times staff writer Julia Wick contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Jenny Jarvie

    Source link

  • Nvidia, AMD to pay U.S. government 15% of China AI chip sales in an unusual export agreement

    [ad_1]

    U.S. chipmakers Nvidia and AMD will pay the U.S. government 15% of revenue generated by sales of their AI chips in China, a White House official confirmed to CBS News. 

    The Financial Times on Sunday reported that the agreement between the tech giants and the U.S. government was reached as a condition for granting export licenses for China, which were provided last week. A U.S. official confirmed the “broad strokes” of the report to CBS News.

    The arrangement, with companies providing a stream of revenue in exchange for export licenses, is highly unusual as corporations typically do not pay the federal government a share of revenue from their export sales. Export licenses also do not carry any fees, according to shipping giant Maersk.

    In a Monday press conference, President Trump described the agreement with Nvidia as a deal that would benefit the nation. He described meeting with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang to discuss the terms of agreeing to the export license; Mr. Trump didn’t mention AMD in his comments.

    “So I said, ‘I want 20% if I’m going to approve it for you,’” Mr. Trump said of his meeting with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang to discuss the terms of the export license. “I don’t want it myself, so when I say I want 20%, it’s for the country.”

    “[Huang] said, ‘Will you make it 15%?’ so we negotiated a little deal,” the president added. 

    The revenue-sharing plan comes after the White House announced in April that it would restrict sales of Nvidia’s H20 chips and MI308 chips from rival chipmaker AMD to China. However, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang last month said it had won approval from the Trump administration to sell its H20 chips to China.

    The H20 chip, which is specialized for artificial intelligence applications, was developed by Nvidia for the Chinese market, while AMD’s MI308 chips are also geared for AI. 

    It is unclear how the Trump administration would use the money generated from the chip sales agreement. 

    Nvidia declined to comment on the specifics of the deal. In a statement, a spokesperson said, “We follow rules the U.S. government sets for our participation in worldwide markets. While we haven’t shipped H20 to China for months, we hope export control rules will let America compete in China and worldwide.”

    AMD did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Stocks for both companies rose slightly on Monday.

    Proponents of restrictions on sales of advanced chips to China say they are necessary to ensure the U.S. maintains a competitive edge as the two countries battle for AI dominance. They’ve also been viewed as a security safeguard. In one instance during the Biden administration, the Commerce Department said it was updating its export controls and said advanced AI capabilities “present U.S. national security concerns.”

    “These controls were strategically crafted to address, among other concerns, the PRC’s efforts to obtain semiconductor manufacturing equipment essential to producing advanced integrated circuits needed for the next generation of advanced weapon systems,” the department said in a 2023 release.

    contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘There will be no invasion.’ Sheinbaum confident Washington won’t strike cartels in Mexico

    [ad_1]

    U.S. military forces will not strike Mexico, President Claudia Sheinbaum vowed Friday in response to reports that President Trump has secretly directed the Pentagon to take action against Latin American drug cartels.

    “There will be no invasion: That is rejected, absolutely rejected,” an emphatic Sheinbaum told reporters at her regular morning news conference. “The United States is not going to come to Mexico with troops.”

    The media accounts, originating in the New York Times, revived nationalist fears in a nation that has endured U.S. invasions and land grabs over the years — though none in more than a century.

    Sheinbaum said Mexico had been informed that Trump was issuing such an order, but “it has nothing to do with Mexican territory.”

    The Mexican leader repeated her oft-stated mantra that Mexico “cooperates and collaborates” with its northern neighbor on drug trafficking and other bilateral issues, but rejects any U.S. military presence or strikes on Mexican soil.

    In May, Sheinbaum said she had rebuffed Trump’s offer — made in one of many telephone calls between the two leaders — of direct U.S. military assistance.

    “We can share information, but we will never accept the presence of the United States Army on our territory,” Sheinbaum said she told Trump in May. “Our territory is inalienable; sovereignty is inalienable.”

    It’s unclear which countries might be a target for a U.S. operation, but in an interview Thursday with on the Eternal Word Television Network, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio noted that, aside from Mexico, there are cartels in Venezuela, Guatemala and Ecuador.

    Rubio said cartels were no longer just a law enforcement issue, but a national security issue. “We cannot continue to just treat these guys as local street gangs,” he said. “They have weaponry that looks like what terrorists, in some cases armies, have.”

    In Mexico, fears that U.S. forces may strike Mexican territory have been growing since the Trump administration formally labeled six Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. Many in Mexico view the designation as a prelude to unilateral Pentagon attacks on purported cartel targets.

    Trump has been complimentary of Sheinbaum but has denounced what he alleges is an “intolerable alliance” between Mexico’s government and organized crime.

    Sheinbaum has rejected U.S. claims that organized crime permeates Mexico’s government and controls vast swaths of Mexican territory.

    Trump has already imposed 25% tariffs on many imports from Mexico — Washington’s leading trading partner — which he says is aimed at forcing authorities here to do more to curb the trafficking of fentanyl, the synthetic opioid blamed for tens of thousands of deaths in the United States.

    The Trump administration has also ramped up U.S. surveillance flights over and near Mexican territory and has massed U.S. troops on the southwestern border in an effort to crack down on drug smuggling and unauthorized immigration.

    But Mexico is not the only nation where the Pentagon might consider striking drug cartels. Venezuela could also find itself in U.S. military crosshairs as Washington amps up its saber-rattling against the South American nation.

    On Thursday the Trump administration said it was doubling its existing reward — to $50 million — for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, a longtime adversary who faces drug-trafficking charges in the United States.

    The U.S. State Department calls Maduro a “leader” of the Venezuelan-based Cartel de los Soles, which the Trump administration has labeled a terrorist group.

    Washington also accused Maduro of links to Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel, which is among the crime syndicates the administration has labeled a foreign terrorist organization.

    On Friday, Sheinbaum told reporters that Mexican authorities had seen no evidence connecting Maduro to the Sinaloa mob.

    Venezuelan authorities dismissed the U.S. charges against Maduro as “political propaganda.”

    Maduro returned to office in January after declaring victory in a 2024 election that critics called rigged and was widely rejected by the international community. Washington does not recognize Maduro as Venezuela’s president.

    Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Patrick J. McDonnell

    Source link

  • Trump seeks $1-billion fine against UCLA. Newsom says ‘we’ll sue,’ calling it extortion

    [ad_1]

    Hours after the Trump administration demanded that the University of California pay a $1-billion fine to settle federal accusations of antisemitism in exchange for restoring frozen grant funding to UCLA, Gov. Gavin Newsom called the proposal “extortion” and said the state will go to court to protect the nation’s premier university system.

    “We’ll sue,” Newsom said during a news conference with Texas legislators over California’s effort to counter a contentious Republican redistricting plan in that state.

    President Trump is “trying to silence academic freedom” by “attacking one of the most important public institutions in the United States of America,” Newsom said, adding that he would “stand tall and push back against that, and I believe every member of California Legislature feels the same way.”

    The federal government on Friday said UC should pay the billion-dollar fine in installments and contribute $172 million to a fund for Jewish students and other individuals affected by alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The statute covers illegal discrimination related to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, including Jewish and Israeli identity.

    • Share via

    In addition, the Trump administration demanded sweeping campus changes encompassing protests, admissions, gender identity in sports and housing, the abolition of scholarships for racial or ethnic groups, and submission to an outside monitor over the agreement, according to four UC senior officials who have reviewed the proposal.

    “He has threatened us through extortion with a billion-dollar fine, unless we do his bidding,” Newsom said.

    “We will not be complicit in this kind of attack on academic freedom on this extraordinary public institution. We are not like some of those other institutions,” he said.

    The governor appeared to be referring to controversial and costly deals the Trump administration secured from Columbia and Brown universities over charges similar to those facing UCLA, deals Newsom criticized a day earlier in public remarks.

    In a statement Friday that UC was “reviewing” the terms, UC President James B. Milliken, who oversees the 10-campus system that includes UCLA, also seemed to rebuff the demand.

    “As a public university, we are stewards of taxpayer resources and a payment of this scale would completely devastate our country’s greatest public university system as well as inflict great harm on our students and all Californians,” Milliken said. “Americans across this great nation rely on the vital work of UCLA and the UC system for technologies and medical therapies that save lives, grow the U.S. economy, and protect our national security.”

    UC Regents Chair Janet Reilly told The Times the university was still willing to negotiate with the Trump administration but not on “unacceptable” terms.

    “Demand for a $1 billion payment from UCLA, coupled with conditions that contradict the university’s values, is unacceptable,” Reilly said, describing it as a “financial burden” that would be “catastrophic for our students, research, our patients and the people of California.

    “The university remains willing to engage in a constructive and good faith dialogue with the federal government but the University of California will always stand firm in protecting the integrity and values of our institution,” Reilly said.

    A spokesperson for UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk referred The Times to Milliken’s statement. Federal negotiations are being handled on a UC-wide level.

    UC is grappling with how to restore $584 million in frozen medical and science grant funds to UCLA. If the deal was accepted, it would be the largest settlement between a university and the Trump administration, far surpassing a $221-million agreement that Columbia University announced last month. Harvard is also reportedly considering a settlement involving a hefty fine.

    “We would never agree to this,” said one of the UC officials who is involved in the deliberations with the Trump administration. “It is more money than was frozen at UCLA. So how does that make sense?”

    But another senior UC official said the figure was understandable if it resolved all federal investigations across the system, even if UC may not ultimately agree to it. The federal proposal focuses on UCLA only, not all campuses.

    Any payment would be a political liability for the university and state leaders in deep-blue California, where Trump’s policies are highly unpopular. A billion dollars would be a financial burden for a university system that is already facing a hiring freeze, budget squeezes, deferred state funding and scattered layoffs.

    UC and individual campuses are under multiple federal investigations into alleged use of race in admissions, employment discrimination against Jews, civil rights complaints from Jewish students and improper reporting of foreign donations.

    UCLA has faced the most charges from the government of any UC or public university, many of them tied to a 2024 pro-Palestinian encampment.

    The encampment, which unsuccessfully demanded the university divest from weapons companies tied to Israel’s war in Gaza, was targeted in a violent overnight attack last spring and was later the subject of federal lawsuit by pro-Israel Jewish students. The students, along with a professor, accused UCLA of enabling antisemitism by not shutting down the encampment, which plaintiffs said blocked pro-Israel Jews from campus pathways. UCLA settled the suit for $6.45 million, including more than $2 million in donations to Jewish nonprofits.

    The Trump administration’s Friday offer follows a similar playbook to agreements it reached with Columbia and Brown universities to restore federal funding and resolve allegations of civil rights violations against Jewish and Israeli students.

    Trump wants to remake universities, which he has called “Marxist” hotbeds of liberalism and anti-Israel sentiment. During his second term, federal agencies have suspended or canceled billions in federal medical and science grants related to gender, LGBTQ+ issues or in response to campuses it accuses of being antisemitic. The White House has also attacked campus diversity programs and admissions practices as being illegal discrimination against white and Asian Americans.

    University leaders have challenged the notion that cutting medical research helps protect Jewish people. “This far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination,” Frenk, the UCLA chancellor, said in a campus letter this week.

    At UCLA, Trump’s demands include an end to scholarships that focus on race or ethnicity, the sharing of admissions data with the government and changes to campus protest rules. The Trump administration is also proposing that UCLA Health and the medical school cease gender-affirming care for transgender people.

    UC has already overhauled practices in some areas called for by the Trump administration — including a ban on protest encampments and the abolition of diversity statements in hiring.

    The Trump administration is also saying it wants an outside monitor to oversee the agreement.

    The proposal came one day after Newsom said UC should not bend “on their knees” to Trump. Newsom, a Democrat, has fashioned himself as a national anti-Trump figure and is considering a presidential run in 2028.

    The university system, run by Milliken — who assumed his role only last week — and the Board of Regents, is independent under the state Constitution. But the governor can exercise political sway over the regents, whose members he appoints. Newsom also holds an ex-officio seat on the board.

    Kaleem reported from Los Angeles and Wilner from Washington. Times staff Writer Taryn Luna in Sacramento and Seema Mehta in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Jaweed Kaleem, Michael Wilner

    Source link

  • Trump administration asks Supreme Court to lift limits on ICE’s ‘roving patrols’

    [ad_1]

    The Trump administration on Thursday petitioned the Supreme Court to free up its mass deportation efforts across Southern California, seeking to lift a ban on “roving patrols” implemented after a lower court found such tactics likely violate the 4th Amendment.

    The restrictions, initially handed down in a July 11 order, bar masked and heavily armed agents from snatching people off the streets of Los Angeles and cities in seven other counties without first establishing reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. illegally.

    Under the 4th Amendment, reasonable suspicion cannot be based solely on race, ethnicity, language, location or employment, either alone or in combination, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of Los Angeles found in her original decision.

    The Trump administration said in its appeal to the high court that Frimpong’s ruling, upheld last week by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, “threatens to upend immigration officials’ ability to enforce the immigration laws in the Central District of California by hanging the prospect of contempt over every investigative stop.”

    Lawyers behind the lawsuits challenging the immigration tactics immediately questioned the Trump administration’s arguments.

    “This is unprecedented,” said Mark Rosenbaum of Public Counsel, part of the coalition of civil rights groups and individual attorneys challenging cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens swept up in chaotic arrests. “The brief is asking the Supreme Court to bless open season on anybody on Los Angeles who happens to be Latino.”

    The move comes barely 24 hours after heavily armed Border Patrol agents snared workers outside a Westlake Home Depot after popping out of the back of a Penske moving truck — actions some experts said appeared to violate the court’s order.

    If the Supreme Court takes up the case, many now think similar aggressive and seemingly indiscriminate enforcement actions could once again become the norm.

    “Anything having to do with law enforcement and immigration, the Supreme Court seems to be giving the president free rein,” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law and a prominent scholar of the country’s highest court. “I think the court is going to side with the Trump administration.”

    The Department of Justice has repeatedly argued that the temporary restraining order causes “manifest irreparable harm” to the government. Officials are especially eager to see it overturned because California’s Central District is the single most populous in the country, and home to a plurality of undocumented immigrants.

    In its Supreme Court petition, the Justice Department alleged that roughly 10% of the region’s residents are in the U.S. illegally.

    “According to estimates from Department of Homeland Security data, nearly 4 million illegal aliens are in California, and nearly 2 million are in the Central District of California. Los Angeles County alone had an estimated 951,000 illegal aliens as of 2019 — by far the most of any county in the United States,” the petition said.

    President Trump made mass deportations a centerpiece of his 2024 campaign, and has poured billions in federal funding and untold political capital into the arrest, incarceration and removal of immigrants. Though Justice Department lawyers told the appellate court there was no policy or quota, administration officials and those involved in planning its deportation operations have repeatedly cited 3,000 arrests a day and a million deportations a year as objectives.

    District and appellate courts have stalled, blocked and sometimes reversed many of those efforts in recent weeks, forcing the return of a Maryland father mistakenly deported to Salvadoran prison, compelling the release of student protesters from ICE detention, preserving birthright citizenship for children of immigrant parents and stopping construction of “Alligator Alcatraz.”

    But little of the president’s immigration agenda has so far been tested in the Supreme Court.

    If the outcome is unfavorable for Trump, some observers wonder whether he will let the justices limit his agenda.

    “Even if they were to lose in the Supreme Court, I have serious doubts they will stop,” Segall said.

    [ad_2]

    Sonja Sharp

    Source link

  • Energy secretary says Trump administration may alter past National Climate Assessments

    [ad_1]

    U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said this week that the Trump administration plans to review and potentially alter the nation’s climate science reports.

    In a Tuesday appearance on CNN’s “The Source,” Wright told CNN host Kaitlan Collins the National Climate Assessments have been removed from government websites “because we’re reviewing them.”

    “We will come out with updated reports on those and with comments on those,” Wright said.

    The National Climate Assessments are mandated by Congress and have been released five times since 2000. The federal reports, prepared by hundreds of volunteer scientists, are subject to extensive peer review and detail how climate change is affecting each region of the United States so far and provide the latest scientific forecasts.

    Wright accused the previous reports of being politically biased, stating that they “are not fair assessments of the data.”

    “When you get into departments and look at stuff that’s there and you find stuff that’s objectionable, you want to fix it,” he said.

    His statements came after the Trump administration in April dismissed more than 400 experts who had already started work on the sixth National Climate Assessment, due for publication in late 2027 or early 2028. The administration in July also removed the website of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which housed the reports.

    The move marks the latest escalation in the Trump administration’s efforts to downplay climate science. The president and Department of Energy in recent months have championed fossil fuel production and slashed funding and incentives for renewable energy projects. This week, the Energy Department posted an image of coal on X alongside the words, “She’s an icon, she’s a legend, and she is the moment.”

    Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed looser regulations for polluting sectors such as power plants and vehicles. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin in March proclaimed the administration was “driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.”

    In his CNN appearance, Wright said the previous climate change assessments — including the 2018 report prepared during Trump’s first term — were not “a reasonable representation of broad climate science.”

    “They have been more politically driven to hype up a real issue, but an issue that’s just nowhere near the world’s greatest challenge,” he said of climate change. “Nobody’s who’s a credible economist or scientist believes that it is, except a few activists and alarmists.”

    Environmental experts were concerned by Wright’s comments.

    “Secretary Wright just confirmed our worst fears — that this administration plans to not just bury the scientific evidence but replace it with outright lies to downplay the worsening climate crisis and evade responsibility for addressing it,” said Rachel Cleetus, policy director for the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, who was among the authors dismissed by the administration.

    “This is one more alarming example of the Trump administration’s ongoing and highly politicized effort to obfuscate scientific truth to further its dangerous and deadly pro-fossil fuel agenda,” Cleetus said.

    The Energy Department last week also released its own climate report, commissioned by Wright, that questions the severity of climate change.

    “Both models and experience suggest that [carbon dioxide]-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and excessively aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial,” the report says.

    Daniel Swain, a climate scientist with the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, noted in a post on X that the previous National Climate Assessments were authored by hundreds of scientists who were leading domain experts in their fields.

    “This would mark an extraordinary, unprecedented, and alarming level of interference in what has historically been a fair and systematic process,” Swain said of the possibility that previous reports could be altered.

    The Department of Energy did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Hayley Smith

    Source link

  • Plummeting ICE arrests in L.A. raise questions about Trump’s immigration agenda

    [ad_1]

    Arrests of undocumented immigrants have dropped significantly across the Los Angeles region two months after the Trump administration launched its aggressive mass deportation operation, according to new figures released Wednesday by Homeland Security.

    Federal authorities told The Times on July 8 that federal agents had arrested 2,792 undocumented immigrants in the seven counties in and around L.A. since June 6. Homeland Security updated that number Wednesday, indicating that fewer than 1,400 immigrants have been arrested in the region in the last month.

    “Since June 6, 2025, ICE and CBP have made a total of 4,163 arrests in the Los Angeles area,” Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement provided to The Times.

    While 1,371 arrests across the L.A. region since July 8 is still a much higher figure than any recent month before June, it represents a notable drop from the 2,792 arrests during the previous month.

    The new figures confirm what many immigration experts suspected: The Trump administration’s immigration agenda in L.A. has faltered since federal courts blocked federal agents from arresting people without probable cause to believe they are in the U.S. illegally.

    McLaughlin said Wednesday that Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem’s agenda remained the same.

    “Secretary Noem unleashed ICE and CBP to arrest criminal illegal aliens including terrorists, gang members, murderers, pedophiles, and sexual predators,” McLaughlin said in a statement Wednesday. “We will continue to enforce the law and remove the worst of the worst.”

    Trump administration officials have long maintained they are focused on criminals. But a few days after White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller announced in late May he had set a new goal of arresting 3,000 undocumented migrants across the country a day, federal agents fanned out across L.A. to snatch people off the streets and from their workplaces.

    White House top border policy advisor Tom Homan suggested federal officials adopted the strategy of raiding streets and workplaces to get around “sanctuary” jurisdictions, such as Los Angeles, that bar municipal resources and personnel from being used for immigration enforcement.

    “If we can’t arrest them in jail, we’ll go out to the communities,” Homan told CBS News.

    But after local protesters rallied to resist and Trump deployed the National Guard and U.S. Marines to the city, the administration’s ability to ramp up deportations across L.A. was dealt a blow in the federal courts.

    On July 11, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, an appointee of President Biden, issued a temporary restraining order that blocks federal agents in southern and central California from targeting people based on their race, language, vocation or location without reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. illegally.

    That decision was upheld last Friday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

    “If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion,” the panel wrote, “they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion.”

    It’s hard to know whether July numbers signal a permanent change in tactics.

    On Tuesday, Border Patrol agent carried out a raid at the Home Depot in Westlake, arresting 16 people.

    “For those who thought Immigration enforcement had stopped in Southern California, think again,” acting U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli posted on X shortly after the raid. “The enforcement of federal law is not negotiable and there are no sanctuaries from the reach of the federal government.”

    Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said her office was looking into the matter but added: “From the video and from the stills, it looks like the exact same thing that we were seeing before.”

    [ad_2]

    Jenny Jarvie

    Source link

  • Are you a student loan borrower? Here’s how the One Big Beautiful Bill Act could affect you.

    [ad_1]

    The millions of Americans with student loans, who have already experienced whiplash in federal policy since the pandemic, must again brace for change.

    The “big, beautiful bill” that President Trump signed into law on July 4 overhauls the federal student loan system by reducing the number of repayment plan options down to two from seven and capping the amount individuals can borrow for higher education. 

    Here’s how the new budget law will affect people with federal student loans. 

    Repayment plan options 

    The One Big Beautiful Bill Act phases out a number of existing federal student loan repayment plans, including the SAVE, PAYE, IBR and ICR.

    Current borrowers enrolled in programs to be eliminated will have until July 1, 2028, to switch to a new plan. For the 7.7 million Americans enrolled in the Biden-era SAVE plan, interest collection will resume on Aug. 1, the Department of Education announced Wednesday. 

    Beginning on July 1, 2026, new student loan borrowers will choose between one of two plans: a standard repayment plan or an income-driven repayment (IDR) plan called the Repayment Assistance Plan. The standard repayment plan will allow student loan borrowers to make fixed payments over the course of 10 to 25 years. 

    That approach “condenses a maze of loan options into two,” simplifying the repayment process, according to the White House.

    The Repayment Assistance Plan will allow borrowers to pay 1% to 10% of their income on a monthly basis, for up to 30 years, Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director at advocacy group Student Borrower Protection Center, told CBS MoneyWatch. That’s a longer timeline than current IDR plans, which are currently either 20 or 25 years. 

    After the 30-year mark, the borrower’s remaining loan balance will be canceled, as is currently the case after an individual’s repayment window ends.

    The five-year payment extension on income-based payments concerns Bañez, who said “borrowers are going to be forced to be in repayment for even longer,” she said.

    However, Sarah Reber, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, thinks the binary repayment options a “huge improvement” from a policy design perspective. The current system is confusing for borrowers given all the options from which they have to choose, she told CBS MoneyWatch.

    “The One Big Beautiful Bill gives families the freedom to choose the best education for their children while reforming a broken federal loan system to promote responsibility, affordability and opportunity,” the White House said in a statement to CBS MoneyWatch.

    Pell Grants

    The new law tightens eligibility rules for the Pell Grant program, the largest source of federal aid for low-income students. From 2021-2022, an estimated 92% of Pell Grant recipients had a total family income at or below $60,000, according to Congress.gov.

    Under the law, students who receive a full scholarship from a college or university will no longer be eligible for additional funding through the Pell Grant program. 

    By contrast, the law expands Pell Grant eligibility for students in workforce training programs. Previously, Pell Grants could only be used to pay for workforce training courses of less than 600 hours and 15 weeks, shutting out many short-term programs.

    That will enable “Pell Grants to be used for short-term, high-quality workforce training programs to support Americans who choose a career or technical education path for career advancement,” the White House said. 

    The budget law also increases scrutiny of the Student Aid Index, which is used to determine the size of an individual’s federal aid eligibility. As a result, higher-income families will have a harder time getting Pell Grant funding, according to the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP).

    Borrowing caps

    The new law sets borrowing caps on certain loans beginning July 1, 2026. 

    Parent PLUS loans — federal loans available for parents of dependent undergraduate students — will now be restricted to $20,000 a year and a total cap of $65,000. That’s a change from the current limit, which amounts to the total cost of attendance minus any student aid an individual receives.

    The new law also does away with Grad PLUS loans, which help people finance higher education degrees. Starting July 1, 2026, new students will no longer be able to apply for the loans. However, current borrowers will be grandfathered and still allowed to access the loans, according to EdSource.

    With the elimination of Grad PLUS loans, graduate students in need of federal tuition assistance will have to take out Direct Unsubsidized Loans. Those seeking unsubsidized federal loans for professional degrees, such as law or medicine, will be restricted to $50,000 per year and a $200,000 lifetime cap. Those seeking advanced degrees in nonprofessional areas, such as history or philosophy, will be subject to an annual borrowing cap of $20,500 and a lifetime limit of $100,000.

    Economic hardship, unemployment deferment

    Currently, student loan borrowers can apply for up to three years of deferment based on economic hardship or unemployment, according to the Federal Student Aid website.

    Starting July 1, 2026, the new law eliminates deferment provisions for borrowers facing economic hardship. For example, someone who falls behind on the bills because of job loss would no longer qualify to defer student loan payments, Bañez said. 

    According to the White House, the changes to the deferment rules will streamline the process while also better protecting students and taxpayers.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Harris Visits North Carolina Amid Helene’s Devastation As Trump Denounces Admin’s Emergency Response

    Harris Visits North Carolina Amid Helene’s Devastation As Trump Denounces Admin’s Emergency Response

    [ad_1]

    One of the first questions former president Donald Trump would ask if a state needed disaster aid while he was in office was, “Are they my people?” according to Stephanie Grisham, who served as the White House press secretary under Trump from 2019 to 2020 and is now supporting Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign.

    As the last weeks have shown, natural disasters, worsened by climate change, don’t discriminate based on how many registered Democrats or Republicans are in the state.

    Harris said this week that she wanted to “personally take a look at the devastation, which is extraordinary.” She expressed admiration for how “people are coming together. People are helping perfect strangers,” according to the Associated Press.

    Since Hurricane Helene hit the southeastern United States in late September, over 200 people have died, making it the fourth-deadliest hurricane to make landfall on the mainland since 1950.

    Trump has visited areas impacted by Helene in recent days to survey the damage done—and to prop up unfounded conspiracies about the Joe Biden-Harris administration’s handling of disaster relief.

    In a Monday Truth Social post, Trump announced he was traveling to the region and claimed that he doesn’t “like the reports that I’m getting about the Federal Government, and the Democrat Governor of [North Carolina], going out of their way to not help people in Republican areas. MAGA!” On Thursday, the former president also said that “Kamala spent all her FEMA money, billions of dollars, on housing for illegal migrants.” That’s not true. According to the Times, “no disaster funding has been spent on those shelters.”

    During a Tuesday appearance in Augusta, Georgia, Harris announced that Biden approved the governor’s request for 100% federal reimbursement of local costs, adding, “I want to thank the local leaders for, together, creating a task force-like response, knowing that we are at our best when we work together and coordinate resources, coordinate our communications to the maximum effect for the community that has been impacted.”

    As Trump spreads these unfounded theories, Republican governors across the region have presented a different tone.

    Republican South Carolina governor Henry McMaster said at a Tuesday press conference that federal assistance had “been superb.” “Thank you to President Biden,” Governor Glenn Youngkin wrote in a press release, adding during a Monday address that he was “incredibly appreciative of the rapid response and the cooperation from the federal team at FEMA.” Bill Lee, Tennessee’s Republican governor, said that the “response was quick from the federal government.”

    On Saturday, Harris is headed to North Carolina to continue monitoring the state of devastation in the southeast. Concurrently, Trump will be back in Butler, Pennsylvania, at the site of the first failed assassination attempt against him in July. Elon Musk, who endorsed Trump following the shooting, will reportedly also be in attendance. Trump has blamed Biden, Harris, and Democrats more broadly for both of the attempts on his life.

    During the 2018 California wildfires, the deadliest in its history, Trump initially opposed sending federal monies to the state, per reporting from The New York Times based on two former administration officials. “But Mr. Trump shifted his position after his advisers found data showing that large numbers of his supporters were being affected by the infernos,” the TimesTim Balk writes.

    Vice President Mike Pence’s homeland security adviser, Olivia Troye, said that at first, Trump instructed those in charge not to send “any money” to California. “We saw numerous instances — this was just one — where it was politicized,” Troye told the Times. “It was red states vs. blue states.”

    “None of this is true and is nothing more than a fabricated story from someone’s demented imagination,” Steven Cheung, a campaign spokesman, said in a statement to the Times. “In and out of office, President Trump has shown up to provide aid and relief to Americans in the wake of natural disasters.”

    [ad_2]

    Katie Herchenroeder

    Source link

  • Biden and Trump are pushing the same failed trade policies

    Biden and Trump are pushing the same failed trade policies

    [ad_1]

    In a letter to House Democrats urging their support for his re-election, President Joe Biden slammed Donald Trump’s recent call for a 10-percent across-the-board tariff on imported products, complaining that it will boost household costs on the average American by $2,500 a year.

    He’s onto something. Tariffs, which are levies imposed on foreign products generally as a means to prop up domestic manufacturers, are just a fancy term for tax hikes. They limit consumer choices as other countries stop shipping goods to our markets. They boost inflation. For instance, Trump’s steel tariffs protected the U.S. steel industry, but raised the price on every item that relies upon steel.

    They lead to trade wars, as other countries retaliate by placing tariffs on U.S. products. By limiting competition, tariffs reduce innovation. Competition is the key to building better mousetraps, but why innovate and cut costs when the government protects your industry from market forces? Unlike with, say, sales taxes, consumers never know why that Toyota suddenly costs an extra thousand bucks.

    The letter understands that Trump’s proposed tariffs will erode Americans’ buying power, but here’s a report from The Wall Street Journal two days later about Biden’s latest policy: “The U.S. will levy a 25 percent tariff on Mexican imports containing steel from China and a 10 percent duty on products made with aluminum from the country.” How can anyone take his letter seriously?

    The media have focused intently on Biden’s fitness for office after a debate performance that focused attention on his age. Reporters love horse race stories. Will he stay or will he go? It’s a legitimate topic, as are stories about Trump’s rallies with his characteristic free associations and rabble-rousing. But there’s been insufficient news coverage of both candidates’ economic policies.

    The problem is their trade policies are roughly the same. Sure, they embrace high tariffs for different reasons. Democrats want to protect domestic unions. Republicans of the populist and national-conservative variety are mostly worried about threats from China. They all sound more radical these days than Bernie Sanders.

    “We must put American workers first, bring jobs back to American soil, and reject radical climate mandates that make China rich and America poor,” said U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), known for giving January 6 protesters a fist pump, while introducing a bill to slap tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles. At a recent National Conservatism conference, Hawley attacked the free market in a way not much different than leftists.

    As I regularly note, we’re seeing the horseshoe theory of politics, as right and left find themselves in roughly the same place (like ends of a horseshoe) rather than far apart along a line. As a Politico in May explained, Trump’s plans for tariffs in 2018 were met with “widespread derision,” but now are broadly embraced by both parties.

    “The contrasting reactions to similar policy moves just a few years apart is yet another reminder of just how much the U.S. political consensus has shifted against free trade,” according to the article. There are many reasons for our current bout of inflation, but I’ve yet to see intense news coverage of the likely link between tariffs and rising prices.

    It’s time to revisit the basics. The Heritage Foundation, the group now closely associated with Trumpism, argued in 2021 that tariffs helped push aluminum prices up 50 percent. It defanged one of the main progressive/national-conservative arguments in favor of them—that they’re needed to prevent countries from “dumping” low-priced goods in the United States.

    “In fact, the idea of dumping is one of the great unicorns of trade policy: oft-imagined but rarely seen in reality,” Heritage researchers concluded. “Even state-supported Chinese firms cannot sustain such losses, bleeding money with each shipment of aluminum sent across the ocean.” Indeed. But tariff advocates need scare stories to pump up their high-tax policies, as they put rent-seeking corporations and unions above American consumers.

    I always love to quote Ronald Reagan, especially now that conservatives have largely abandoned his legacy: “Free trade serves the cause of economic progress, and it serves the cause of world peace. When governments get too involved in trade, economic costs increase and political disputes multiply.” Of course, Reagan sometimes violated his own principles.

    The year after that 1982 speech, he spearheaded 45-percent tariffs on imported heavy motorcycles—a blatant attempt to protect Harley Davidson from Japanese competition. The Japanese mainly adjusted their model lineups and Harley doubled down on its niche market and has been in perpetual decline. Many observers trace the company’s current struggles to those tariffs.

    I’m for free trade because it promotes freedom, reduces government control, promotes innovation, reduces prices, relieves international tensions, lessens overseas poverty, reduces pressure for immigration, and boosts worldwide living conditions. Sadly, whichever of these candidates wins the 2024 election, we’re stuck with a new round of terrible trade policies.

    [ad_2]

    Steven Greenhut

    Source link

  • How Donald Trump Echoes Joe McCarthy

    How Donald Trump Echoes Joe McCarthy

    [ad_1]

    On one of my near-daily calls with my younger brother, who lives in Los Angeles, I mentioned my anxiety about November’s election—and maybe having to leave the country after it’s all over.

    “I might just want to have a small apartment in Canada or Mexico or something, just in case Trump comes back into power,” I said.

    He scoffed, albeit in a very loving and gentle way. “You know, the worst case would be something like what happened to Grandpa,” he said, pausing. “And you know that kind of made his career.”

    What happened to my grandpa, Howard Fast, is that his government deemed him a radical and in 1950 threw him in jail. Howard had been a best-selling novelist, whose books, like Citizen Tom Paine and Freedom Road, explored race, class, and revolutionary ideals. During World War II, he did his part for the US Office of War Information, writing and editing Voice of America broadcasts.

    But where Howard went astray, at least in the eyes of Senator Joseph McCarthy and his fellow red-baiters, was that he joined the Communist Party and refused to provide records of an anti-fascist organization to the House Un-American Activities Committee. This was a time of heightened fear and paranoia, just months after McCarthy delivered his infamous “Enemies From Within” speech in which he claimed to have a list of known communists working in the State Department. (And since history rhymes, later McCarthy hired as his chief counsel Roy Cohn, who would go on to mentor a young Donald Trump.)

    Howard spent three months at Mill Point Federal Prison, where he began what would be his best-known work, Spartacus. He was forced to self-publish because he was blacklisted, with his epic story of a slave uprising later immortalized onscreen by actor Kirk Douglas and director Stanley Kubrick. So yes, Grandpa became much more famous after being jailed.

    When I recently spoke to my father, Jonathan, who is also a writer, he noted that Howard’s appearance before the House Un-American Activities Committee made him a household name. “He was on the cover of The New York Times,” said my father. (A front-page Times headline from June 1950: “11 ‘Anti-Fascists’ Are Sent to Jail”). “Before that he was famous, but after that…”

    “But it fucked him up, right?” I asked.

    “I don’t know,” he responded. “I think he found jail scary.”

    Howard went on to write more than 80 books before dying in 2003, a year before The Apprentice would beam Cohn’s apprentice into the homes of millions of Americans, helping transform a cartoonish New York tabloid fixture into the image of a decisive business mogul and laying the groundwork for an unlikely path to the White House.

    Trump has made vengeance the cornerstone of his 2024 campaign. “I am your justice, and for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution,” he told a crowd in March 2023. I wrote for Vanity Fair at the time how dangerous Trump’s behavior was, even as some pundits were writing off his chances of a comeback. He stepped up the menacing rhetoric in a Veterans Day speech. “We will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections. They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American Dream,” Trump said, later adding: “The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave than the threat from within.”

    I was already sure Trump would be terrible for democracy—we watched him sic a mob on the Capitol, after all—and that he had little regard for the rule of law. (The latter was made even more clear during Trump’s hush money trial in New York, where he was found guilty of 34 felony counts.) Not to mention, Trump’s continued demonizing of the media—a.k.a. “THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!”—on Truth Social.

    But the November speech left me convinced that he would target his perceived domestic foes, with journalists among them. It’s not like Trump and his allies are hiding anything. Kash Patel, a close Trump ally expected to land a key national security role in a future administration, said in December on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast, “We will go out and find the conspirators, not just in government but in the media. Yes, we’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections—we’re going to come after you. Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out.”

    Such a menacing scenario looks only more plausible in light of last month’s Supreme Court ruling giving presidents presumptive immunity from prosecution when carrying out “official” acts—a decision that could effectively put Trump, if elected, above the law. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that, by the conservative majority’s reasoning, a president would have immunity even if ordering “the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival.” Since that historic ruling, Trump has raised the threat level by amplifying social media posts calling for Liz Cheney, a Republican critic, to be brought before a televised military tribunal. Trump also promoted a post calling for various political figures to be jailed, including Biden, Kamala Harris, Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, and Mike Pence.

    Now, whether I—a liberal writer, podcaster, and MSNBC commentator—would make such a Trump “enemies” list remains to be seen, and for the record, my second son thinks I’m being hysterical. But it’s certainly not out of the range of possibilities that visible members of the media, the types regularly warning against the dangers of Trump on social media and cable news shows, would be targets of a second administration hell-bent on revenge.

    I remember once, when I was young, asking my grandmother Bette about her husband’s time in jail. Toward the end of Howard’s sentence, she said, he started gardening, a peaceful image. She also told me how people used to throw rocks at her window during this period. Bette said that no one felt like heroes when all this was going on. She was raising two young children, and everything felt out of control. My grandmother wasn’t a wildly dramatic person. I knew if she was saying that, it had to have been bad.

    Growing up, I was aware that my grandfather and mother, the feminist writer Erica Jong, were of a strange species of political novelist. “Since I believe that a person’s philosophical point of view has little meaning if it is not matched by being and action, I found myself willingly wed to an endless series of unpopular causes,” Howard said in a 1972 interview, “experiences which I feel enriched my writing as much as they depleted other aspects of my life.”

    My grandfather truly believed that his political work was the best thing he ever did and took pride in his 1,100-page FBI profile for detailing “every—or almost every—decent act I had performed in my life.”

    If I were to seek some testament to leave to my grandchildren, proving that I had not lived a worthless existence but had done my best to help and nourish the poor and oppressed, I could not do better than to leave them this FBI report. In those pages, there is no crime, no breaking of the law, no report of an evil act, an un-American act, an indecent act—and I was no paragon of virtue, and I did enough that I regret—but the lousy bits and pieces of my life are nowhere in those pages, only the decent and positive acts: speaking at meetings for housing, for trade unionism, for better government, for libertarianism, for a free press, for the right to assemble, for higher minimum wages, for equal justice for black and white, against lynching, against the creation of an underclass, against injustice wherever injustice was found, and for peace, and walking picket lines, and collecting signatures.

    [ad_2]

    Molly Jong-Fast

    Source link

  • The 2024 GOP Platform Promises To ‘Make America Affordable Again.’ So Why Are They Embracing Fiscal Insanity?

    The 2024 GOP Platform Promises To ‘Make America Affordable Again.’ So Why Are They Embracing Fiscal Insanity?

    [ad_1]

    The Republican National Committee just released its 2024 platform. While calling it a platform is a stretch, the list of bullet points gives an idea of what the potential next Trump administration’s goals are. Here’s one issue that should be front and center: End inflation and make America affordable again.

    To be sure, “make America more affordable” would be a great slogan and a great objective. It’s similar to what many have called an “abundance agenda.” While there is plenty to dislike in a platform that at times feels unserious and destructive, this part I like.

    Abundance isn’t achieved by the same old subsidies or tax breaks for special interests, price controls, or spending loads of taxpayer money on transfer payments. It’s achieved by freeing up the supply side of our economy. That means freeing producers and innovators from excessive regulatory obstacles and heavy tax burdens (including tariffs) so they can provide more of what Americans need.

    The Trump administration platform assures us it will move in this direction. For instance, it wants to increase America’s dominance as an energy producer, which will only be achieved through a deregulation agenda. Apart from counterproductive tax incentives for first-time homeowners, it expresses a commitment to lowering housing costs through deregulation.

    The platform states it will “cancel the electric vehicle mandate and cut costly and burdensome regulations” as well as “end the Socialist Green New Deal.” I assume that means ending the expensive subsidies and tax breaks in the Inflation Reduction Act. Great idea, but get ready to hear all the recipients of these handouts cry that they won’t be able to do what they were already doing before being given the subsidies.

    A deregulation agenda would serve the Republicans’ goal of boosting manufacturing much better than tariffs, which former President Donald Trump continues to love despite overwhelming evidence that they don’t do what he claims. Most tariffs raise the prices of inputs used by American firms, including manufacturing, to produce outputs that serve their customers.

    Something similar could be said about Republicans’ swipes at immigrants. Fewer immigrants will create labor supply shortages, hurt manufacturing, and slow the economy.

    Still, even with their disastrous trade and immigration agenda and the many contradictory goals espoused by this platform, implementing the deregulatory part of the agenda will make some strides at freeing the supply side and hence lowering prices. Indeed, President Joe Biden has not only maintained many of Trump’s tariffs, but he’s added some of its own. He’s also systematically favored subsidizing the demand for certain things—nudging customers to buy what he wants them to buy—while taking actions that restrict supply. That’s a recipe for affordability failure.

    But as far as affordability goes, I’m less optimistic about the prospect of the next administration ending inflation. That’s because Trump and other Republicans are firmly embracing fiscal irresponsibility and excessive debt. The platform contains no mention of a plan to get government debt under control. Instead, it pledges to “fight for and protect Social Security and Medicare with no cuts, including no changes to the retirement age.”

    Many voters love hearing this promise. But maintaining these two objectively underfinanced programs will inevitably explode the debt burden over the next 30 years. In the entire history of the United States so far, Uncle Sam has accumulated roughly $34 trillion in debt. Under the Trump plan, the government would need to borrow another $124 trillion for these programs alone.

    Leaving aside the question of who will lend us all this money when foreign buyers are already scaling back purchases of U.S. Treasuries, remember that most of the inflation we’ve recently suffered is the product of massive Biden administration spending on top of the COVID-19 spending without any plan to pay for it. As such, announcing that the U.S. will simply go on another borrowing spree sends a poor signal, and it might even increase inflation.

    This is made more important because Trump wants to make permanent the tax cuts that are set to expire after 2025, end taxes on tips, and more. If Congress and the president do this without any offsetting spending reductions, it will add at least another $4 trillion in debt over 10 years. With more inflationary fuel, we could easily see the Federal Reserve raise interest rates again, making borrowing money even more expensive than it already is.

    The bottom line is that Trump’s deregulatory agenda could have a shot at lowering some prices. But it will only be a game-changer if he becomes serious about fiscal responsibility. Right now, he isn’t, so I wouldn’t count on it.

    COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM

    [ad_2]

    Veronique de Rugy

    Source link