Aurelia Butler

More stories

  • 88 Shares37 Views

    in Elections

    NYT Crossword Answers for June 4, 2025

    Danna Rosenberg finds a positive spin.Jump to: Today’s Theme | Tricky CluesWEDNESDAY PUZZLE — Are you a “glass half-empty” or a “glass half-full” kind of person? When faced with circumstances outside your control, do you hope for the best or expect the worst? I think my outlook in such situations is generally good, with a soupçon of despair. One might argue that bracing for the worst is actually positive thinking because it means that any other outcome is sure to exceed expectations.Today’s grid, constructed by Danna Rosenberg in her New York Times Crossword debut, hinges on an optimistic expression that refers to working with what you have. Ms. Rosenberg has done so brilliantly within the constraints of her first puzzle, and I have a good feeling (optimism!) about her future constructions.Today’s ThemeWhen life gives you lemons, you MAKE LEMONADE (61A). When the crossword gives you lemons, you find they’re hidden in entries at 17-, 27- and 48-Across. And then make lemonade.A lemon lurks in 17A’s JANELLE MONÁE, the [Platinum-selling singer who co-starred in the films “Moonlight” and “Hidden Figures”]. There’s another one in 27A’s TICKLE MONSTER, the imaginary [Creature that might “attack” a small child]. And you’ll spot a third at 48A in [Homing devices?], as in ANKLE MONITORS.If you’re newer to solving, take note of what’s clever about this theme: Each LEMON is split between the two words of an entry. Expect to find this strategy in clues that mention “hidden” words.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares59 Views

    in Elections

    Some House Republicans Have Regrets After Passing Trump’s Domestic Policy Bill

    The sprawling legislation carrying President Trump’s domestic agenda squeaked through the House with one vote to spare, but some Republicans now say they didn’t realize what they voted for.When Republicans muscled their sweeping domestic policy bill through the House by a single vote after an overnight debate, they breathed a sigh of relief, enjoyed a celebratory moment at sunrise and then retreated to their districts for a weeklong recess.Not even two weeks later, the victory has, for some, given way to regret.It turns out that the sprawling legislation to advance tax and spending cuts and to cement much of President Trump’s domestic agenda included a raft of provisions that drew little notice or debate on the House floor. And now, Republicans who rallied behind the bill are claiming buyer’s remorse about measures they swear they did not know were included.Last week, Representative Mike Flood of Nebraska admitted during a town hall meeting in his district that he did not know that the bill would limit judges’ power to hold people in contempt for violating court orders. He would not have voted for the measure, he said, if he had realized.And as lawmakers returned to Washington on Tuesday after their weeklong break, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia said that she had been unaware that the mega-bill she voted for would block states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade.“Full transparency, I did not know about this section,” Ms. Greene posted on social media, calling it a violation of states’ rights and adding that she “would have voted NO if I had known this was in there.”The remorseful statements highlighted the realities of legislating in the modern age. Members of Congress, divided bitterly along partisan lines and often working against self-imposed political deadlines, have become accustomed to having their leaders throw together huge pieces of legislation at the very last moment — and often do not read the entirety of the bill they are voting on, if they read any of it at all. At the same time, the polarization of Congress means that few pieces of legislation make it to the floor or to enactment — and the few “must pass” bills that do are almost always stuffed full of unrelated policy measures that would otherwise have little hope of passing on their own.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 175 Shares63 Views

    in Elections

    Is Trump Unveiling a Crypto Wallet? His Associates Say Yes. His Sons Say No.

    The back-and-forth over a potential Trump cryptocurrency wallet on Tuesday exposed rifts among the family’s web of digital currency ventures.A flashy new website drew a surge of attention on Tuesday afternoon, purporting to announce the latest cryptocurrency venture backed by President Trump.The developers of Mr. Trump’s memecoin, the website said, were working with a company called Magic Eden to launch “the Official $TRUMP Wallet” — a trading app for customers to buy and sell digital currencies.But the announcement soon triggered a backlash from an unexpected source: Mr. Trump’s sons.Donald Trump Jr. wrote on X that the Trump family business had no connection to the new crypto product. His brother Eric Trump said he knew “nothing about” it. And in a rare social media post, Barron Trump, the youngest Trump son, said that “our family has zero involvement.”The sons’ reaction to the announcement appeared to expose a rift in Mr. Trump’s ever-expanding network of crypto ventures, a complex web of businesses run by various family members and associates who now appear to be competing against each other.On one side is Bill Zanker, a longtime Trump business partner and the architect of the president’s memecoin, a type of cryptocurrency usually based on an online joke, which Mr. Trump began promoting shortly before his inauguration in January. On the other are Mr. Trump’s sons, who helped found World Liberty Financial, a separate crypto business that markets its own digital currency, which has generated $550 million in sales.In a series of text messages to The New York Times, Eric Trump escalated the dispute on Tuesday, saying the Trump family would legally challenge the creation of the “Official $TRUMP Wallet” — even though it was being promoted on social media by an account linked to Mr. Zanker.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 175 Shares44 Views

    in Elections

    Trump Asks Congress to Claw Back $9 Billion for Foreign Aid, NPR and PBS

    The request seeks to codify spending cuts advanced by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.The White House formally asked Congress on Tuesday to claw back more than $9 billion in federal funds that lawmakers had already approved for foreign aid and public broadcasting, seeking to codify spending cuts put forward by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. In a package compiled by the Office of Management and Budget, officials outlined 22 programs targeted by President Trump in executive orders and by DOGE. The bulk of the rollbacks — $8.3 billion — are aimed at foreign aid spending. The rest — $1.1 billion — would rescind funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds NPR and PBS. The proposal comes as the White House has aggressively challenged Congress’s power of the purse and made clear it is willing to steer around the legislative branch to unilaterally control federal spending.In this case, though, the administration is going through normal channels and asking Congress to go along with its efforts to redirect federal money. Lawmakers can approve such a measure by a simple majority vote in both chambers. Republican lawmakers have argued that it is important for Congress to codify spending cuts that were already enacted by the Trump administration by executive order. “This rescissions package reflects many of DOGE’s findings and is one of the many legislative tools Republicans are using to restore fiscal sanity,” Speaker Mike Johnson said on Tuesday. “Congress will continue working closely with the White House to codify these recommendations, and the House will bring the package to the floor as quickly as possible.”The last time the Trump administration asked lawmakers to pull back federal funds they had already approved, during Mr. Trump’s first term, the effort failed after two Republican senators joined Democrats to defeat what had been a largely symbolic effort.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares75 Views

    in Elections

    New Jersey Turnpike to Replace Tesla Chargers After Contract Expires

    The agency that runs the highway said it was switching to another company to provide chargers that work for electrical vehicles other than just Teslas.The agency that runs the New Jersey Turnpike is replacing the more than 60 superchargers for Tesla vehicles along the highway after the state did not renew its contract with the electric-car maker.New Jersey officials said in a statement on Friday that the state would shift to another company that would provide universal charging stations. The change, already underway, will almost triple the number of charging stations along the turnpike and the Garden State Parkway, a second major toll road, where chargers are being added for the first time.The decision drew an apparently irked response from the company’s chief executive, Elon Musk. “Sounds like corruption,” he wrote on his social media platform, X, on Friday night, without providing any evidence. Mr. Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.Thomas Feeney, a spokesman for the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, which operates the highways, said that the decision was both about increasing the number of stations and providing chargers that were compatible with more than just Tesla vehicles. “Our goal is to serve as many E.V. owners as possible across all our service areas,” he said.The state has amended its agreement with Applegreen, an Irish company that already manages restaurants and stores in the turnpike’s service areas, to include its new line of fast charging stations to replace the Tesla equipment and build new stations elsewhere.In a message posted to X on Friday, Tesla said it would continue to offer its superchargers in New Jersey. “We have been preparing for 3 years for this potential outcome by building 116 stalls off the New Jersey Turnpike, ensuring no interruption for our customers,” said the post, which included a map of the charging stations.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares84 Views

    in Elections

    Trump Rescinds Biden Policy Requiring Hospitals to Provide Emergency Abortions

    At issue is how to interpret a federal law barring hospitals from turning away poor or uninsured patients.The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that it had revoked a Biden administration requirement that hospitals provide emergency abortions to women whose health is in peril, including in states where abortion is restricted or banned.The move by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a branch of the department led by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was not a surprise. But it added to growing confusion around emergency care and abortions since June 2022, when the Supreme Court rescinded the national right to abortion by overturning Roe v. Wade.“It basically gives a bright green light to hospitals in red states to turn away pregnant women who are in peril,” Lawrence O. Gostin, a health law expert at Georgetown University, said of the Trump administration’s move.The administration did not explicitly tell hospitals that they were free to turn away women seeking abortions in medical emergencies. Its policy statement said hospitals would still be subject to a federal law requiring them to provide reproductive health care in emergency situations. But it did not explain exactly what that meant.Mr. Gostin and other experts said the murky policy could have dire consequences for pregnant women by discouraging doctors from performing emergency abortions in states where abortions are banned or restricted.“We’ve already seen since the overturn of Roe that uncertainty and confusion tends to mean physicians are unwilling to intervene, and the more unwilling physicians are to intervene, the more risk there is in pregnancy,” said Mary Ziegler, a professor at the University of California-Davis and a historian of the American abortion debate.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares50 Views

    in Elections

    In N.Y.C. Mayor’s Race, Mamdani Responds to a Call for His Deportation

    Vickie Paladino, a councilwoman from Queens, called Zohran Mamdani a “radical leftist” who hates America, and warned against “future Zohrans.”In his surprising rise to New York City’s top tier of mayoral hopefuls, Zohran Mamdani has battled opponents’ attacks on his inexperience, his leftward politics and his criticism of Israel’s war in Gaza.But this week, Mr. Mamdani found himself facing a new attack that was both pointed and illogical, when a Republican city councilwoman from Queens called for him to be deported. (Mr. Mamdani is a U.S. citizen.)The remark by the councilwoman, Vickie Paladino, who is known for her incendiary social media posts, quickly became a talking point in the Democratic mayoral primary race, just a day before the candidates were to face off in their first debate.Ms. Paladino recirculated a 2019 social media post from Mr. Mamdani in which he said he couldn’t vote for Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont for president in 2016 because he was not a citizen at the time. She was incredulous that Mr. Mamdani was being treated seriously as a mayoral candidate.“Let’s just talk about how insane it is to elect someone to any major office who hasn’t even been a U.S. citizen for 10 years — much less a radical leftist who actually hates everything about the country and is here specifically to undermine everything we’ve ever been about,” Ms. Paladino wrote on X late Monday evening. “Deport.”Mr. Mamdani, who is polling second behind former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo in the June 24 primary, soon responded.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares79 Views

    in Elections

    Justice Dept. Drops Biden-Era Push to Obtain Peter Navarro’s Emails

    The department’s move is one of many recent actions taken to dismiss criminal and civil actions against Trump allies such as Mr. Navarro, the president’s trade adviser.The Justice Department has abruptly dropped its effort to force Peter Navarro, President Trump’s trade adviser, to turn over hundreds of his emails dating to the first Trump administration to the National Archives, according to a court filing on Tuesday.The decision to drop the civil lawsuit was disclosed in a one-page notice filed in Federal District Court in the District of Columbia. The department offered no explanation for the move, but it is one of many recent actions it has taken to dismiss criminal and civil actions taken against Trump allies.Mr. Navarro, 75, had long resisted the government’s request that he give the archives emails from his personal ProtonMail account relating to his role as a White House adviser, as required by the Presidential Records Act.Defiance is Mr. Navarro’s default. He served about four months in the geriatric unit of a federal prison in Miami after refusing to comply with a subpoena to appear before a congressional committee investigating his false claims about the 2020 election.In 2022, the Biden Justice Department sued Mr. Navarro, one of the main architects of Mr. Trump’s second-term tariff policy, to retrieve the communications. The lawsuit charged him with “wrongfully retaining presidential records that are the property of the United States, and which constitute part of the permanent historical record of the prior administration.”The lawsuit accused Mr. Navarro of using his private email account to conduct public work, including an effort to influence the White House response to the pandemic. Those emails were needed to preserve the historical record, officials at the archives said.Mr. Navarro unsuccessfully petitioned the Supreme Court to dismiss the suit last year.A federal magistrate judge earlier reviewed about 900 messages, determining that more than 500 were not presidential records. He ordered additional hearings to decide how many of the remaining 350-plus emails needed to be turned over to the government.Mr. Navarro’s lawyer did not immediately return a request for comment.Stanley Woodward, who represented Mr. Navarro in both his civil and criminal cases, recused himself after Mr. Trump appointed him in April to serve as associate attorney general. More