More stories

  • in

    Judge Blocks Trump Order Ending Union Protections for Federal Workers

    An order signed by President Trump last month was aimed at stripping collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of federal workers.A federal judge in Washington blocked President Trump from ending collective bargaining with unions representing federal workers, stymying a component of Mr. Trump’s sweeping effort to strip civil servants of job protections and assert more control over the federal bureaucracy.Judge Paul L. Friedman of the Federal District Court in Washington ruled in favor of the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents tens of thousands of federal workers across the government. Without including an opinion explaining his decision, Judge Friedman ruled that the executive order from Mr. Trump was unlawful, and he granted a temporary injunction blocking its implementation while the case proceeded.“An opinion explaining the court’s reasoning will be issued within the next few days,” Judge Friedman wrote in the two-page order.The order, if implemented, would strip collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of federal workers, effectively banning them from joining unions.Those unions have been a major obstacle in Mr. Trump’s effort to slash the size of the federal work force and reshape the government. With every stroke of the pen from Mr. Trump enacting new orders aimed at tightening control over the federal bureaucracy, federal worker unions have responded with lawsuits, winning at least temporary reprieves for some fired federal workers and blocking efforts to dismantle portions of the government.Mr. Trump had framed his order stripping workers of labor protections as critical to protect national security. But the union noted that it targeted agencies across the government, some of which had no obvious national security portfolio, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency.“The administration’s own issuances show that the president’s exclusions are not based on national security concerns,” the suit said, “but, instead, a policy objective of making federal employees easier to fire and political animus against federal sector unions.” More

  • in

    My ‘Natural’ Hairdresser Uses Synthetic Chemicals. Can I Leave a Bad Review?

    The magazine’s Ethicist columnist on responding to a small-business owner’s misleading claims.I’ve been going to a hairstylist who promotes his all-natural, organic dye as healthy for hair. I never questioned it, until at my most recent visit he dyed my hair the wrong color. When I asked him to fix it, he made it even worse, turning my hair a deep mahogany instead of the golden copper I requested. For two weeks he repeatedly insisted, via text, that he had done it correctly, and that I didn’t know what I wanted. His rude, angry responses made me too uncomfortable to ever return. Frustrated, I researched the dye brand he used and was horrified to learn that its key ingredient, ethanolamine, is potentially more damaging to hair than ammonia, and I’ve read that it could be carcinogenic.Now I’m torn. My hairstylist refunded my money, and I sympathize with him as a small-business owner, but I also feel compelled to warn people that his “healthy” dye may not be as safe as he claims. Am I obligated to speak up, or should customers be responsible for doing their own research? Would posting a negative review protect others or punish him by potentially putting his small business at risk? What’s the right thing to do? — Name WithheldFrom the Ethicist:I understand why you’re feeling torn. You don’t want to jeopardize someone’s livelihood over a disappointing experience, but you also feel a responsibility to speak up if others might be misled. Two key questions are whether your stylist knowingly misrepresented the product and whether it really poses health risks.It’s entirely possible he genuinely believed what he was saying. Companies often use carefully crafted language to make their dyes sound especially “natural.” Naturtint, for example, highlights its U.S.D.A. BioPreferred certification and touts “botanical-inspired formulas.” Aveda describes its hair-color line as “vegan.” Both brands still contain industrially synthesized chemicals. (Yes, chemists classify most carbon-containing compounds as “organic,” but that’s not how marketers use the term.) Your stylist may simply be parroting what the product reps told him.When it comes to safety, precision matters. Ethanolamine-based dyes may not be as gentle as their marketing suggests — some studies do indicate they can weaken hair more than ammonia does. Still, they’re far less harsh than the all-natural potash or slaked lime our ancestors once used. Like ammonia, ethanolamine helps open the hair cuticle so color can penetrate. It’s also a normal product of our body’s metabolism, though it’s industrially produced for commercial use. While it shouldn’t be combined with substances that can form harmful nitrosamines — a risk reputable brands are careful to avoid — ethanolamine is not classified as a carcinogen.Which brings us to your dilemma. If you do write a review, focusing on your personal experience — the color errors and how the stylist responded — would be the fairest and most helpful approach. There’s no clear legal definition of “natural” for cosmetic products; the status of ethanolamine is complicated; and unless you feel confident explaining it clearly, it may not be the most relevant detail to include.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

  • in

    U.K. Folk Bands Use Centuries-Old Ditties to Discuss Prison Abolition, Trans Rights and the Gig Economy

    Several rising British bands are using centuries-old ditties to discuss hot-button issues like prison abolition, trans rights and the gig economy.Think of English folk music and maybe thoughts come to mind of villagers lamenting lost loves or sailors bellowing tales of adventure at sea.But when the rising British folk band Shovel Dance Collective performs, its members want their listeners to think of more contemporary concerns.At the band’s shows, the singer Mataio Austin Dean sometimes introduces “The Merry Golden Tree,” a song about a badly treated cabin boy, as a tale of “being shafted by your boss” — a scenario many office workers might relate to.The group also performs “I Wish There Was No Prisons” and “A Hundred Stretches Hence”: probable 19th-century ditties that Alex McKenzie, who plays accordion and flute in the group, said could be thought of as pleas for prison abolition.Many folk songs “ring very true” today, McKenzie said: “There’s a very easy thread you can draw between what ordinary people were concerned about 100, 200 years ago, or whatever, and what we’re concerned with now.”Goblin Band performing at the Ivy House, a South London pub that regularly hosts folk nights.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesWe 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

  • in

    Uncertainty Over Trump’s Tariffs Paralyzes U.S. Businesses

    Three months ago, things were looking pretty good for Tim Fulton and Ramper Innovations, a manufacturer of airplane equipment based in Sitka, Alaska.Mr. Fulton was spending his days inside his workshop doing what he loved: building the company’s main product — a fold-up conveyor belt that unfurls in the belly of a plane to load and unload cargo or luggage. He had an order from the U.S. Air Force that he was confident would serve as a catalyst and bring in new customers from Asia and the Middle East while luring potential investors.Then, the tariffs from President Trump struck.The New York Times heard from Mr. Fulton and hundreds of other American business owners who said they have been stunned into paralysis by Mr. Trump’s barrage of tariffs. They are reassessing their product lines and supply chains and even putting their operations on hold.Mr. Fulton, 66, was floored at the size of the tariffs and how quickly and chaotically they were applied. There were tariffs on Mexico and Canada and steel and aluminum. Mr. Trump hit dozens of countries with higher “reciprocal” tariffs he then put on hold when financial markets crashed. China struck back and the import tariff on Chinese goods ratcheted up to 145 percent.Even though Ramper makes its products in the United States and buys as much of its components as possible from American companies, there is no getting around the tariffs. Some essential parts, such as motorized and static rollers from Japan, are only available overseas. The raw materials needed to build other critical parts are also imported. Most of Ramper’s U.S. suppliers rely on imports for some part of their supply chain.Ramper raised its price 17 percent — a ballpark estimate for how much the tariffs would inflate its costs. Mr. Fulton also warned prospective customers that he may need to increase his price further if tariffs pushed his costs up by more than 5 percent. Prospective customers balked at the higher prices and the uncertainty of what the final price might be.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

  • in

    Wisconsin Judge Arrested, Accused of Shielding Immigrant From Federal Agents

    Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested on suspicion that she “intentionally misdirected federal agents away from” an immigrant being pursued by the authorities, the F.B.I. director said in a social media post that he later deleted.F.B.I. Director Kash Patel said on Friday that agents had arrested a county judge in Milwaukee on charges of obstructing immigration enforcement. A spokesman for the U.S. Marshals confirmed the arrest of a sitting judge, a major escalation in the Trump administration’s battle with local authorities over deportations.The bureau arrested Judge Hannah Dugan on suspicion that she “intentionally misdirected federal agents away from” an immigrant being pursued by federal authorities, Mr. Patel wrote on social media. He later deleted the post for reasons that were not immediately clear. An F.B.I. spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Brady McCarron, a spokesman for the U.S. Marshals, confirmed that the judge had been arrested by F.B.I. agents on Friday morning. The charging document against the judge was not immediately available in federal court records.The Trump administration has vowed to investigate and prosecute local officials who do not assist federal immigration enforcement efforts, denouncing what they call “sanctuary cities” for not doing more to assist federal apprehensions and deportations of millions of undocumented immigrants.The Milwaukee case involves a frequent flashpoint in that debate, when immigration agents try to arrest undocumented immigrants who are appearing in state court. Local authorities often chafe at such efforts, arguing they endanger public safety if people dealing with relatively minor legal issues feel it is unsafe to enter courthouses.In the first Trump administration, a local Massachusetts judge was indicted by the Justice Department on charges of obstructing immigration authorities. The charges were dropped after the judge agreed to refer herself to potential judicial discipline. More

  • in

    Standing With History to Say Goodbye

    As a reporter, I often observe from a press box or the sidelines. This time, I decided to join the masses.I never had the chance to say hello. But I stood in line to say goodbye.After Pope Francis died, my editors asked me to fly to Italy in advance of a move next month to take up the post of Rome bureau chief. I recently finished an eight-year tour in Tokyo and had thought I would cover the twilight of Francis’s term.Instead, after arriving Thursday night to help report on the funeral and upcoming Conclave to elect Francis’ successor, I wandered over to St. Peter’s Square on Friday morning. I wasn’t planning to linger. I hadn’t picked up my press badge yet, and had read my colleagues’ stories about people waiting for hours to pass before Pope Francis’ coffin.Once I joined the flow of the faithful, I didn’t want to leave the line. I felt an undeniable pull to stay. It was a holiday in Italy and many locals stood to wait along with thousands of tourists and pilgrims. I heard Italian, Spanish, English and many other languages. There were nuns in their habits, older people in wheelchairs, youth groups dressed in identical T-shirts and carrying matching drawstring backpacks.Despite the heavy police presence, the order was loose, with some people weaving in and out and passing ahead, as if on a congested freeway on a weekend. There was not much grumbling, perhaps in deference to the solemn reason we were there.Mourners standing in wait along with thousands of tourists and pilgrims. James Hill for The New York TimesWe 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

  • in

    NFL Draft Fashion: Ashton Jeanty and Travis Hunter Stand Out

    A new wave of college players enters professional football with branding deals in place and fashion on their minds.Hours before Ashton Jeanty, a running back with Sonic the Hedgehog speed, was selected by the Las Vegas Raiders with the sixth pick at Thursday’s first round of the N.F.L. draft, he clomped onto the red carpet in a pair of never-worn-before Crocs with shimmery Swarovski crystals across the toe.The crystaled clogs were teased hours earlier on Crocs’s Instagram, accompanied by a droll caption: “yes, they’re real Swarovski.” Per the Crocs website, the Liberaced clogs aren’t available until May 6. Yet, if ever there was an occasion to introduce them, it was draft night.In recent years the N.F.L. draft has mutated from an annual ritual with all the theatrics of a plumber’s convention, to a runway show for the freakishly fit.It’s now taken on a new dimension in the post-N.I.L. era (referring to name, image, likeness, the 2021 change in N.C.A.A. policy that allowed college athletes to earn money). To watch the N.F.L. draft now is to detect just how adept these barely-20-somethings are at personal branding. If Deion Sanders (whose son Shedeur became the story of the night, falling out of the first round, well below his projection) was ahead of his time when he was drafted in 1989, challenging the league’s conservatism by wearing blocky sunglasses and several gold chains, that look-at-me tendency is all too pervasive now.Today, college players that ascend to the N.F.L. enter the league with an acute understanding of themselves not just as players, but as brands — with all the promotional value that comes along from that.“Every player is now realizing and learning that they’re their own big machine,” said Kyle Smith, the N.F.L.’s fashion editor, who helps the league and its players build relationships in the fashion industry. For top prospects, Mr. Smith said the draft “is the first time that the public really gets to see them and obviously they use fashion to express who they are.”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

  • in

    Judges Worry Trump Could Tell U.S. Marshals to Stop Protecting Them

    The marshals are in an increasingly bitter conflict between two branches of government, even as funding for judges’ security has failed to keep pace with a steady rise in threats.On March 11, about 50 judges gathered in Washington for the biannual meeting of the Judicial Conference, which oversees the administration of the federal courts. It was the first time the conference met since President Trump retook the White House.In the midst of discussions of staffing levels and long-range planning, the judges’ conversations were focused, to an unusual degree, on rising threats against judges and their security, said several people who attended the gathering.Behind closed doors at one session, Judge Richard J. Sullivan, the chairman of the conference’s Committee on Judicial Security, raised a scenario that weeks before would have sounded like dystopian fiction, according to three officials familiar with the remarks, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations: What if the White House were to withdraw the protections it provides to judges?The U.S. Marshals Service, which by law oversees security for the judiciary, is part of the Justice Department, which Mr. Trump is directly controlling in a way that no president has since the Watergate scandal.Judge Sullivan noted that Mr. Trump had stripped security protections from Mike Pompeo, his former secretary of state, and John Bolton, his former national security adviser. Could the federal judiciary, also a recent target of Mr. Trump’s ire, be next?Judge Sullivan, who was nominated by President George W. Bush and then elevated to an appellate judgeship by Mr. Trump, referred questions about his closed-door remarks to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which stated its “complete confidence in those responsible for judicial security.”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