Aurelia Butler

More stories

  • 163 Shares40 Views

    in Elections

    Shein and Temu Will be Hit by Trump’s China Tariffs. Americans Are Worried.

    The Trump administration’s plan to add steep fees to packages from China will deal a blow to Temu, Shein and some TikTok Shop sellers, worrying American consumers.Tamika Johnson, a 44-year-old in Chicago, posted videos to TikTok this month about her orders from Shein, the Chinese e-commerce giant. She was nervous about potential delivery delays in the face of upcoming tariffs.Her 213,000 followers chimed in as she shared status updates on her purchases of clothing and suitcases, detailing their own plans for last-minute orders and sharing concerns about their shipments.“People are very worried,” Ms. Johnson, who posts to TikTok under the handle @TammyTheBlackPrepper, said in an interview. “I’m trying to stock up on clothes now and the things that I need.”Ms. Johnson is one of many American consumers who have been posting anxiously to TikTok and Reddit about a coming Trump administration-induced change for the Chinese e-commerce companies Shein and Temu, which sell inexpensive items like $8 dresses and $14 wagons. Starting on May 2, the Trump administration is poised to end a trade loophole that enabled the delivery of ultra low-cost goods from Chinese factories straight to Americans’ doorsteps without being subject to duties. That will add steep new fees to packages from Shein and Temu.At least some sellers on TikTok Shop, the popular app’s growing marketplace, and AliExpress, another Chinese e-commerce site, will also take a hit.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 Shares23 Views

    in Elections

    Law Firms Made Deals With Trump. Now He Wants More From Them.

    To avoid retribution, big firms agreed to provide free legal services for uncontroversial causes. To the White House, that could mean negotiating trade deals — or even defending the president and his allies.When some of the nation’s biggest law firms agreed to deals with President Trump, the terms appeared straightforward: In return for escaping the full force of his retribution campaign, the firms would do some free legal work on behalf of largely uncontroversial causes like helping veterans.Mr. Trump, it turns out, has a far more expansive view of what those firms can be called on to do.Over the last week, he has suggested that the firms will be drafted into helping him negotiate trade deals.He has mused about having them help with his goal of reviving the coal industry.And he has hinted that he sees the promises of nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services that he has extracted from the elite law firms — including Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom; and Willkie Farr & Gallagher — as a legal war chest to be used as he wishes.“Have you noticed that lots of law firms have been signing up with Trump: $100 million, another $100 million for damages that they’ve done,” Mr. Trump said at an event last week with coal miners, without specifying what he meant by damages.None of the firms have acknowledged any wrongdoing. They were targeted with punitive executive orders or implicit threats for representing or aiding Mr. Trump’s political foes or employing people he sees as having used the legal system to come after him.The deals have been widely criticized, as they are seen by many in the legal community as unconstitutional and undemocratic. Four firms whom Mr. Trump leveled executive orders against have fought them in court, all quickly receiving rulings from federal judges who temporarily halted them.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 Shares40 Views

    in Elections

    R.S.F. in Sudan Declare Parallel Government Amid Assault on Zamzam Camp

    The United Nations said that at least 300 people were killed when the armed group, the Rapid Support Forces, stormed a camp in Darfur.A Sudanese paramilitary group declared its own government on Wednesday, even as its fighters pressed an all-out offensive on a city in the western Darfur region that has sent hundreds of thousands of civilians fleeing from a famine-stricken camp.The announcement of a parallel government by the Rapid Support Forces, or R.S.F., stoked fears that Sudan’s two-year civil war is rapidly pushing the country toward a potentially disastrous territorial split. The R.S.F. controls much of western and southern Sudan, while the military holds the north and east, including the capital Khartoum. Both sides have been accused of atrocities.The R.S.F. leader, Gen. Mohamed Hamdan, gave few details about the composition of what he called his “government of peace and unity,” other than to say it would include a wide range of ethnic groups reflecting “the true face of Sudan.”Such calls for inclusivity echo longstanding demands by Sudanese pro democracy activists, who oppose the military’s tightfisted grip on power. But as often in Sudan’s brutal conflict, the R.S.F.’s high-minded rhetoric was at odds with the actions of its troops.The paramilitaries launched a large-scale offensive on Friday, storming the Zamzam camp in El Fasher, the last major city in Darfur that the R.S.F. does not control, as part of a broader assault. On Tuesday, the United Nations said that at least 300 people had been killed and as many as 400,000 others forced to flee the camp in a matter of days.Zamzam, which housed at least 500,000 people and where a famine was declared last August, is now largely empty, according to aid workers. They say that at least 30,000 people have fled to Tawila, 50 miles by road to the west — with many arriving dehydrated, malnourished and traumatized by the scenes they witnessed in the camp.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

  • 100 Shares30 Views

    in Elections

    China Girds for Economic Stress of Trump’s Tariffs

    The economy grew steadily from January through March, but U.S. tariffs pose a risk for China in the coming weeks and months.President Trump’s tariffs have been good for China’s economic growth. At least they were over the first three months of the year, as the country’s factories raced to ship exports ahead of the trade restrictions.China’s National Bureau of Statistics reported on Wednesday that the country’s gross domestic product grew 1.2 percent from the last three months of 2024. If that pace continues, the Chinese economy will expand at an annual rate of 4.9 percent.But whether China can maintain that growth is shrouded in uncertainty.Pinned down by tariffs that threaten to freeze trade with its biggest customer, China’s economy is facing one of its greatest challenges in years.Growth in the early months of this year was propelled by rapidly rising exports and the manufacturing investment and production necessary to support those exports. Sales of electric cars, household appliances, consumer electronics and furniture were also strong because of ever-widening government subsidies for buyers.Then on April 2, Mr. Trump started escalating tariffs, which reached an extraordinary 145 percent for more than half of China’s exports to the United States.Mr. Trump’s first two rounds of tariffs on Chinese goods, 10 percent in February and again in March, had little immediate effect on exports. China’s overall exports in March rose 12.4 percent in dollar terms from a year earlier, as some exporters appeared to rush shipments to docks before tariffs could go even higher.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 Shares28 Views

    in Elections

    Trump Gives Conflicting Signals and Mixed Messages on Iran Nuclear Talks

    Just a few weeks ago, President Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Waltz, a longtime hawk on Iran, cast the administration’s goal in negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program in crystal clear terms.“Full dismantlement,” he said. He went on to list what that meant: Iran had to give up facilities for enriching nuclear fuel, for “weaponization” and even its long-range missiles.But what sounded like a simple, tough-sounding goal on a Sunday talk show has started to unravel. In the past 24 hours, officials have left a contradictory and confusing set of messages, suggesting the administration might settle for caps on Iran’s activities — much as President Barack Obama did a decade ago — before backtracking on Tuesday.Some of this may simply reflect inexperience in dealing with nuclear weapons programs. Mr. Trump’s chief negotiator is Steve Witkoff, a friend of the president’s who, as a New York developer like him, has spent a lifetime dealing with skyscrapers but only began delving into Iran’s underground nuclear centrifuges and suspected weapons labs a few weeks ago.But the inconsistency also appears rooted in the splits inside Mr. Trump’s national security team as it grapples anew with one of the longest-lasting and most vexing problems in American foreign policy: How to stop Iran’s nuclear program without going to war over it. So far, the result is a blitz of mixed messages, conflicting signals and blustering threats, not unlike the way Mr. Trump and his aides talk about their ever-evolving tariff strategy.The issue came to the fore on Monday night when Mr. Witkoff began talking about his first encounter with Iran’s foreign minister last Saturday in Oman. The meeting went well, he said, plunging into the complex world of Iran’s nuclear program, which has taken it to the very threshold of building a weapon.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

  • 163 Shares47 Views

    in Elections

    What to Know as Trump Freezes Federal Funds for Harvard and Other Universities

    The showdown between the Trump administration and institutions of higher learning intensified on Tuesday, when President Trump threatened Harvard University’s tax-exempt status after the school refused to accept his administration’s demands on hiring, admissions and curriculum.His threat, and the stakes involved, highlighted not only the billions of dollars in government funding that colleges receive every year but how that practice started and what all that money goes toward.When did colleges and universities begin receiving substantial federal funds?Around the time of World War II, the U.S. government started funding universities for the purpose of aiding the war effort, funneling money toward medical research, innovation and financial aid for students.The relationship between the federal government and higher education soon became symbiotic. As the government counted on universities to produce educated and employable students, as well as breakthrough scientific research, universities came to rely on continued funding.In 1970, the government dispersed about $3.4 billion to higher education. Today, individual colleges depend on what could be billions of dollars, which mainly go toward financial aid and research. Harvard alone receives $9 billion.What does the government money fund, and what kinds of programs will lose out if it is cut?The funding freezes have caused work stoppages, cut contracts, imperiled medical research and left students in limbo. Reductions can also affect hospitals that are affiliated with universities, like the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Boston Children’s Hospital, both of which are affiliated with Harvard.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

  • 163 Shares40 Views

    in Elections

    2 Protesters at Marjorie Taylor Greene Town Hall Are Subdued With Stun Guns

    A town hall for Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia outside of Atlanta on Tuesday quickly deteriorated into chaos, as police officers forcibly removed several protesters.Ms. Greene, a Republican firebrand and loyal ally of President Trump, had barely reached the podium to speak when a man in the crowd at the Acworth Community Center stood up and started yelling, booing and jeering at her. As her supporters stood and clapped, several police officers grabbed the man, later identified by the police as Andrew Russell Nelms of Atlanta, and dragged him out of the room.“I can’t breathe!” Mr. Nelms shouted, interjecting with expletives as he was told to put his arms behind his back. The police then used a stun gun on him twice.Back inside the room, Ms. Greene was unfazed as she greeted attendees at the event, in Acworth, Ga, northwest of Atlanta. She thanked the officers, drawing applause from the crowd of about 150 people.“If you want to shout and chant, we will have you removed just like that man was thrown out,” she said. “We will not tolerate it!”Minutes later, as Ms. Greene started to play a video of former President Barack Obama discussing the national debt, police forcibly removed and used a stun gun on a second man, identified later as Johnny Keith Williams of Dallas, Ga., who had stood up and started to heckle.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

  • 75 Shares35 Views

    in Elections

    Why Harvard Decided to Fight Trump

    The Trump administration will freeze over $2 billion in federal funds because Harvard refused to comply with a list of demands. Harvard leaders believed saying no was worth the risk.Late last week, officials at Harvard University were trying to decipher what the Trump administration wanted the school to do to combat antisemitism.The government had made some straightforward demands, like requiring the school to ban masks, which are often favored by protesters.But other demands seemed vague.Then, late on Friday night, the federal government sent Harvard a five-page fusillade of new demands that would reshape the school’s operations, admissions, hiring, faculty and student life.It took less than 72 hours for Harvard to say no.The decision is the most overt defiance by a university since President Trump began pressuring higher education to conform to his political priorities.It came after leaders at Harvard, during intense discussions over the weekend, determined that what the government was proposing represented a profound threat to the 388-year-old university’s independence and mission.Harvard has extraordinary financial and political firepower for a clash with Washington. And the university’s leaders watched Columbia University reel, as the Trump administration made more demands, even after the school capitulated.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