More stories

  • in

    NPR sues Trump administration over funding cuts it says violate first amendment

    National Public Radio, the US public broadcaster that provides news and cultural programming to more than 1,000 local stations, has filed a federal lawsuit against Donald Trump’s administration, challenging an executive order that cuts federal funding to the public broadcaster as an unconstitutional attack on press freedom.The lawsuit, which landed on Tuesday in federal court in Washington, argues that Trump’s 1 May executive order violates the first amendment by targeting NPR for news coverage the president considers “biased”.“The intent could not be more clear – the executive order aims to punish NPR for the content of news and other programming the president dislikes,” NPR’s CEO, Katherine Maher, said in a Tuesday statement. “This is retaliatory, viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of the first amendment.”NPR, which Maher describes as non-partisan news, was joined by three Colorado public radio stations in seeking to have the order permanently blocked and declared unconstitutional.The executive order instructs federal agencies to “cease Federal funding for NPR and PBS” and eliminate indirect sources of public financing. The White House defended the move, claiming NPR and PBS “have fueled partisanship and left-wing propaganda with taxpayer dollars”. The White House cited a few examples it said demonstrated bias, including editorial decisions around coverage of transgender issues, the Hunter Biden laptop story and Covid-19’s origins.Trump’s criticism of public broadcasting notably intensified after a former longtime NPR editor wrote a viral article in the Free Press claiming the organization had become too progressive and left-leaning, with some of the article’s subject matter making it into the executive order as well. Maher herself has also been caught in the crossfire, with past posts about “white silence” in the wake of the George Floyd murder getting spotted on social media, before she was in journalism and ran NPR.The lawsuit describes the order as “textbook retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination” that threatens “the existence of a public radio system that millions of Americans across the country rely on for vital news and information”.NPR says its funding structure has evolved since its 1970 founding. Today, member station fees comprise 30% of its funding, corporate sponsorship provides 36%, while just 1% comes directly from federal sources. The non-profit media organization now employs hundreds of journalists whose work is broadcast by local stations across the United States – and vice versa puts a national spotlight on local news stories with on-the-ground context and reporting – and is part of the White House press corps.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“NPR has a first amendment right to be free from government attempts to control private speech as well as from retaliation aimed at punishing and chilling protected speech,” Maher said in the statement. More

  • in

    Trump has ‘never evolved, which is dangerous’, his niece Mary Trump says

    Donald Trump has “never evolved” and “isn’t close with anybody”, according to Mary Trump, the US president’s niece and a vocal critic of his business and political career.The daughter of Donald’s older brother, Fred Trump Jr (nicknamed Freddie), Mary Trump told the Hay festival in Wales – where she was discussing her latest book about the Trump family, Who Could Ever Love You – that she no longer has relationships with anyone in her family apart from her daughter.She described herself as “the black sheep of the family”, calling her grandfather, Fred Trump, Donald’s father, “literally a sociopath”, and adding: “Cruelty is a theme in my family.”She explained that much of her understanding of her uncle comes from when she was in her 20s and Donald hired her to ghostwrite his second book.“I can’t say we got closer, because Donald isn’t close with anybody,” she said, but working with him for six months in his office, she got “a little bit more insight”.“He is the only person I’ve ever met who’s never evolved, which is dangerous by the way,” she said. “Never choose as your leader somebody who’s incapable of evolving – that should be one of the lessons we’ve learned, for sure.”She also described the president as “one of the most provincial people I know, and that does not serve us well, at all”.Reading from her book, she described the moment a friend of her father’s, Anna Maria, met Donald for the first time. “When she first encountered Donald, he was a cocky, rude teenager, who was intensely jealous of his older brother, Freddie.“Donald didn’t have any friends, so she felt sorry for him, but whenever they included him, they regretted it. Nobody in Freddie’s circle could bear to be around this arrogant, self-important, humorless kid.“Over the years, Anna Maria watched Donald devolve into an even more arrogant adult with a widening, cruel streak.”In the book she also recounts Donald throwing a baseball at his young nieces and nephews when he was in his 20s and she was eight years old. Her brother bought her a catcher’s mitt for Christmas one year, and she “realised it was probably to protect me from having every bone in my hand broken from Donald throwing a baseball at me as hard as he could”.Mary also told audiences that after Donald’s older sister, Elizabeth, was born, doctors told his mother “that it would be very dangerous for her to have more children” because of her health issues. “She did, and the next one was Donald. About which I will say nothing more,” Mary joked.His mother later became very ill, meaning Donald, “at a very crucial developmental period, did not have his primary caregiver, and the only person left was his dad, the sociopath. So you can imagine how that sort of changed the trajectory of Donald’s life.”Mary is a psychologist whose previous books, Too Much and Never Enough and The Reckoning, also involve her uncle. She distanced herself from him around the time he began his first presidential term in 2017.In 2021, the former president sued her for $100m for giving the New York Times information for its investigation into his finances. The lawsuit sends “a very clear message to me”, she said. “But what if everybody capitulates? Then what? Well, then we lose, and that’s unacceptable.”She added that she does not “understand people who are afraid of Donald, because he’s so pathetic. I would be embarrassed to be afraid of him.” More

  • in

    The anti-woke warriors used to defend free speech. Now they make McCarthyism look progressive | Arwa Mahdawi

    Thoughts and non-denominational prayers to all the anti-woke warriors out there. It may seem as though everything is going their way now Donald Trump is back with a vengeance, but the poor things have run into a bit of a branding problem. For years, the anti-woke crowd positioned themselves as fearless free thinkers taking on the intolerant left. The journalist Bari Weiss wrote a fawning New York Times piece in 2018 describing rightwing voices such as Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens as “renegades of the intellectual dark web” (IDW).Now, however, the people who used to position themselves as oppressed truth-tellers operating in what Weiss’s article called an “era of That Which Cannot Be Said”, have a state-sanctioned microphone. They’ve won. But in winning they’ve made it difficult to continue the charade that they give a damn about “cancel culture”. Look around: some of these self-styled free speech warriors are doing everything they can to ruin the lives of everyone who doesn’t 100% agree with them.Most conservatives don’t seem to mind that their hypocrisy is now on full display. But, according to a recent piece on the news site Semafor, a handful of people within the anti-woke media ecosystem are starting to have something of an identity crisis. “One didn’t have to be especially prescient to spot those ‘anti-woke’ types who would just slowly become Maga flunkies,” said the libertarian journalist Michael Moynihan, who had a short stint at Weiss’s publication the Free Press before becoming disillusioned.Remember when the right railed against people losing jobs for old comments they’d made? In 2018, for example, the Atlantic fired the conservative columnist Kevin Williamson after the backlash about a 2014 podcast appearance in which the 60-year-old had suggested women should face hanging for having an abortion. Cue a million furious tweets from the “renegades of the IDW” about how, as Ben Shapiro put it on X, “virtually everyone is vulnerable if they run afoul of the Left’s interests”.Now, however, there’s no denying that virtually everyone is vulnerable if they run afoul of the right’s interests. Semafor’s piece notes that “One [Free Press] investigation that exposed two low-profile employees at PBS who had focused on diversity and got them fired rubbed even some of its allies the wrong way”.At least the DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) employees at PBS “only” got fired. Canary Mission and Betar US, two pro-Israel groups, have been compiling “deportation” lists of pro-Palestinian activists on college campuses and sharing them with the Trump administration. Betar US has also warned that it is going to expand its focus beyond immigrants to naturalised US citizens.These organisations are just a couple of cogs in a massive dissent-crushing machine. The Christian nationalist Heritage Foundation, which spearheaded Project 2025, is behind a dystopian plan called Project Esther that cynically weaponises very real concerns about antisemitism to shut down criticism of Israel and quash pro-Palestinian activism. And you can bet these censorious projects won’t end with Palestinians: at the rate we’re going, pro-choice sentiment will soon be considered “anti-Christian” and anyone espousing it will get deported. If that sounds far-fetched, let me remind you that last month the veterans affairs department ordered staff to report their colleagues for “anti-Christian bias”.Drunk on their power to deport and defame, some on the right have officially lost the plot. For months a number of conservative voices have been engaged on a mission to cancel Ms Rachel, a children’s entertainer whose real name is Rachel Accurso. If you have small children, Ms Rachel needs no introduction. For everyone else, she wears a pink headband and sings songs such as Icky Sticky Bubble Gum. Ms Rachel’s videos have always been gently inclusive: she incorporates sign language and she has frequently had Jules Hoffman, a non-binary musician, on her show. On her personal social media she has also advocated for issues such as paid family leave.The right tried to cancel Ms Rachel over Hoffman’s gender identity back in 2023. Now they’re trying to cancel the beloved star again; this time for the “crime” of speaking up about Palestinian kids and featuring a three-year-old double amputee from Gaza in a video. The fact Accurso is humanising Palestinian children is driving some rightwing voices so berserk that they’re smearing her as antisemitic, asking the US attorney general for an investigation, and spreading the ridiculous and completely baseless lie (which the New York Times bizarrely chose to amplify) that she is being funded by Hamas.Welcome to our “new era of That Which Cannot Be Said”: one that may make McCarthyism seem progressive. It would seem the new renegades of the intellectual dark web are those of us who think you shouldn’t bomb starving babies in their sleep just because they are Palestinian.

    Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist

    Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

  • in

    Europeans are concerned that the US will withdraw support from NATO. They are right to worry − Americans should, too

    The United States has long played a leadership role in NATO, the most successful military alliance in history.

    The U.S. and 11 other countries in North America and Europe founded NATO in 1949, following World War II. NATO has since grown its membership to include 32 countries in Europe and North America.

    But now, European leaders and politicians fear the United States has become a less reliable ally, posing major challenges for Europe and, by implication, NATO.

    This concern is not unfounded.

    President Donald Trump has repeatedly spoken of a desire to seize Greenland, which is an autonomous territory of Denmark, a NATO member. He has declared that Canada, another NATO member, should become “the 51st state.” Trump has also sided with Russia at the United Nations and said that the European Union, the political and economic group uniting 27 European countries, was designed to “screw” the U.S.

    Still, Trump – as well as other senior U.S. government officials – has said that the U.S. remains committed to staying in and supporting NATO.

    For decades, both liberal and conservative American politicians have recognized that the U.S. strengthens its own military and economic interests by being a leader in NATO – and by keeping thousands of U.S. troops based in Europe to underwrite its commitment.

    President Donald Trump speaks at a NATO Summit in July 2018 during his first term.
    Sean Gallup/Getty Images

    Understanding NATO

    The U.S., Canada and 10 Western European countries formed NATO nearly 80 years ago as a way to help maintain peace and stability in Europe following World War II. NATO helped European and North American countries bind together and defend themselves against the threat once posed by the Soviet Union, a former communist empire that fell in 1991.

    NATO employs about 2,000 people at its headquarters in Brussels. It does not have its own military troops and relies on its 32 member countries to volunteer their own military forces to conduct operations and other tasks under NATO’s leadership.

    NATO does have its own military command structure, led by an American military officer, and including military officers from other countries. This team plans and executes all NATO military operations.

    In peacetime, military forces working with NATO conduct training exercises across Eastern Europe and other places to help reassure allies about the strength of the military coalition – and to deter potential aggressors, like Russia.

    NATO has a relatively small annual budget of around US$3.6 billion. The U.S. and Germany are the largest contributors to this budget, each responsible for funding 16% of NATO’s costs each year.

    Separate from NATO’s annual budget, in 2014, NATO members agreed that each participating country should spend the equivalent of 2% of its gross domestic product on their own national defense. Twenty two of NATO’s 31 members with military forces were expected that 2% threshold as of April 2025.

    Although NATO is chiefly a military alliance, it has roots in the mutual economic interests of both the U.S. and Europe.

    Europe is the United States’ most important economic partner. Roughly one-quarter of all U.S. trade is with Europe – more than the U.S. has with Canada, China or Mexico.

    Over 2.3 million American jobs are directly tied to producing exports that reach European countries that are part of NATO.

    NATO helps safeguard this mutual economic relationship between the U.S. and Europe. If Russia or another country tries to intimidate, dominate or even invade a European country, this could hurt the American economy. In this way, NATO can be seen as the insurance policy that underwrites the strength and vitality of the American economy.

    The heart of that insurance policy is Article 5, a mutual defense pledge that member countries agree to when they join NATO.

    Article 5 says that an armed attack against one NATO member is considered an attack against the entire alliance. If one NATO member is attacked, all other NATO members must help defend the country in question. NATO members have only invoked Article 5 once, following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the U.S., when the alliance deployed aircraft to monitor U.S. skies.

    A wavering commitment to Article 5

    Trump has questioned whether he would enforce Article 5 and help defend a NATO country if it is not paying the required 2% of its gross domestic product.

    NBC News also reported in April 2025 that the U.S. is likely going to cut 10,000 or more of the nearly 85,000 American troops stationed in Europe. The U.S. might also relinquish its top military leadership position within NATO, according to NBC.

    Many political analysts expect the U.S. to shift its national security focus away from Europe and toward threats posed by China – specifically, the threat of China invading or attacking Taiwan.

    At the same time, the Trump administration appears eager to reset relations with Russia. This is despite the Russian military’s atrocities committed against Ukrainian military forces and civilians in the war Russia began in 2022, and Russia’s intensifying hybrid war against Europeans in the form of covert spy attacks across Europe. This hybrid warfare allegedly includes Russia conducting cyberattacks and sabotage operations across Europe. It also involves Russia allegedly trying to plant incendiary devices on planes headed to North America, among other things.

    President Joe Biden speaks during a NATO summit in Washington in July 2024.
    Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images

    A shifting role in Europe

    The available evidence indicates that the U.S. is backing away from its role in Europe. At best – from a European security perspective – the U.S. could still defend European allies with the potential threat of its nuclear weapon arsennal. The U.S. has significantly more nuclear weapons than any Western European country, but it is not clear that this is enough to deter Russia without the clear presence of large numbers of American troops in Europe, especially given that Moscow continues to perceive the U.S. as NATO’s most important and most powerful member.

    For this reason, significantly downsizing the number of U.S. troops in Europe, giving up key American military leadership positions in NATO, or backing away from the alliance in other ways appears exceptionally perilous. Such actions could increase Russian aggression across Europe, ultimately threatening not just European security bu America’s as well.

    Maintaining America’s leadership position in NATO and sustaining its troop levels in Europe helps reinforce the U.S. commitment to defending its most important allies. This is the best way to protect vital U.S. economic interests in Europe today and ensure Washington will have friends to call on in the future. More

  • in

    A hidden measure in the Republican budget bill would crown Trump king | Robert Reich

    If enacted, Donald Trump’s Big Ugly Bill as it emerged on Thursday from the House of Representatives would result in the largest redistribution of income and wealth in American history – from the poor and working class to the rich.Hidden within the bill is also a provision that would allow Trump to crown himself king.For months now, Trump has been trying to act like a king by ignoring court rulings against him.The supreme court has told Trump to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Ábrego García, a legal resident of the United States who even the Trump regime admits was erroneously sent to a brutal prison in El Salvador.Trump has done nothing.Lower federal courts have ordered him to stop deporting migrants without giving them a chance to know the charges against them and have the charges and evidence reviewed by a neutral judge or magistrate – the minimum of due process.Again, nothing.Judge James Boasberg, chief judge of the federal district court for the District of Columbia, issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Trump regime from flying individuals to the prison in El Salvador without due process.Judge Boasberg has found that the Trump regime has willfully disregarded his order.Is there anything that the courts can do in response to Trump’s open defiance of judges and justices?They have only one power to make their orders stick. They can hold federal officials in contempt, and enforce such contempt citations by fining or jailing them.It’s a radical remedy, rarely used. But several federal judges are at their wits’ end.Boasberg said that if Trump’s legal team does not give the dozens of Venezuelan men sent to the Sallvadorian prison a chance to legally challenge their removal, he’ll begin contempt proceedings against the administration.In a separate case, the US district court judge Paula Xinis has demanded that the Trump administration explain why it is not complying with the supreme court order to “facilitate” the release of Ábrego García.Xinis has even questioned whether the administration intends to comply with the order at all, citing a statement from the. homeland security chief, Kristi Noem, that Ábrego García “will never be allowed to return to the United States”.According to Xinis, “That sounds to me like an admission. That’s about as clear as it can get.”So what’s the next step? Will the supreme court and lower courts hold the administration in contempt and enforce the contempt citations?Trump and his Republican stooges in Congress apparently anticipated this. Hidden inside their Big Ugly Bill is a provision intended to block the courts from using contempt to enforce its orders. It reads:skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued …”Translated: no federal court may enforce a contempt citation.The measure would make most existing injunctions – in antitrust cases, police reform cases, school desegregation cases and others – unenforceable.Its only purpose is to weaken the power of the federal courts.As Erwin Chemerinsky, UC Berkeley School of Law dean and distinguished professor of law, notes, this provision would eliminate any restraint on Trump.“Without the contempt power, judicial orders are meaningless and can be ignored. There is no way to understand this except as a way to keep the Trump administration from being restrained when it violates the Constitution or otherwise breaks the law …“This would be a stunning restriction on the power of the federal courts. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the contempt power is integral to the authority of the federal courts. Without the ability to enforce judicial orders, they are rendered mere advisory opinions which parties are free to disregard.”In other words, with this single measure, Trump will have crowned himself king.If it is enacted, no Congress and no court could stop him. Even if a future Congress were to try, it could not do so without the power of the courts to enforce their hearings, investigations, subpoenas and laws.The gross unfairness of Trump’s Big Ugly Bill is bad enough. It would worsen the nation’s already near-record inequalities of income and wealth.But the provision inside the bill that neuters the federal courts is even worse. It would remove the last remaining constraint on Trump, and thereby effectively end American democracy.

    Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is a professor of public policy emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com More

  • in

    She compared motherhood in four countries. The US isn’t looking good

    When Abigail Leonard saw the news that the Trump administration was considering handing out $5,000 “baby bonuses” to new mothers, she realized that she had already received one.A longtime international reporter, Leonard gave birth to three children while living in Japan, which offers a year of parental leave, publicly run daycare, and lump-sum grants to new parents that amount to thousands of US dollars. But it was not until moving back to the US in 2023 that Leonard grasped just how robust Japan’s social safety net for families is – and, in comparison, just how paltry the US net feels.Not only is the US the only rich country on the planet without any form of national paid leave, but an uncomplicated birth covered by private insurance tends to cost families about $3,000, which, Leonard discovered, is far more than in most other countries. The federal government also spends a fraction of what most other wealthy countries spend on early education and childcare, as federally subsidized childcare is primarily available only to the lowest earners. Middle-class families are iced out.View image in fullscreenLeonard traces the effects of policies and disparities like these in her new book, Four Mothers, which follows the pregnancy and early childrearing experiences of four urban, middle-class women living in Japan, Kenya, Finland and the US. Published earlier this month, Four Mothers provides a deeply personal window into how policy shapes parents’ lives. And it has emerged as an increasingly rightwing US seems poised to embrace the ideology of pronatalism and policies aimed at convincing people to have more kids.Pronatalism is deeply controversial, in no small part because its critics say pronatalists are more concerned with pushing women to have kids than with ensuring women have the support required to raise them.“Being ‘pronatal’ – designing policy to increase the birthrate – is not the same thing as being pro-woman,” Leonard notes in Four Mothers’ introduction. A $5,000 check would not have been enough to help any of the moms profiled in the book. Instead, the women relied on – or longed for, in the case of the US – extensive external support, such as affordable maternity care, parental leave and access to childcare.“The book is an implicit comparison of the rest of the world to the US, and parenthood is so much harder here in many ways,” Leonard said in a phone interview with the Guardian. “People are so accepting that things can be privatized and that government can be torn down and that there won’t be any repercussions to that. We don’t think about how integral government policy is to our lives, and for that reason can’t imagine how much more beneficial it could be.”View image in fullscreenIn the US, resistance to increasing government aid in childrearing has long gone hand in hand with a commitment to upholding a white, traditional view of the American family. At virtually every juncture, rightwing groups have been galvanized to stop sporadic efforts at expanding support. During the second world war, Congress allocated $20m to a universal childcare program that could help women work while men fought in the war effort. The program was so popular that people protested in the streets to keep it even after the war ended, according to Leonard. But the program was dismantled after political disputes over how to run the program, as southern states demanded that the daycares be segregated.In 1971, Congress passed the Comprehensive Child Development Act, which would have created a national system of federally subsidized daycare centers. Inflamed by the idea that the bill would encourage women to work outside the home, church groups organized letter-writing campaigns against the bill. Rightwing pundits, meanwhile, claimed the bill was “a plan to Sovietize our youth”. Richard Nixon ultimately vetoed the bill, calling it “the most radical piece of legislation” to ever cross his desk.Today, Leonard writes, corporations have an entrenched interest in keeping childcare from becoming a public good in the US. Private equity is heavily invested in childcare companies. Wealthy corporations, especially big tech companies, can also use their generous paid leave policies to lure in the best talent.“I talked to a congressman who was telling me he was trying to get some of these companies on board to back a national paid leave policy, and they were saying: ‘We don’t want to do paid leave because then we give up our own competitive advantage.’ It’s so cynical,” Leonard said. “These are companies that have been able to create this image around themselves of being feminist and pro-family. Like: ‘They’re great places to work for women. They help fund fertility treatments!’”She continued: “They’ve feminist-washed themselves. They’re working against a national policy that would benefit everyone and that ultimately would benefit our democracy, because you wouldn’t have this huge inequality of benefits and lifestyles.”‘A grind’The US has become far more accepting of women’s careerist ambitions over the last 50 years – especially as it has become more difficult for US families to sustain themselves on a single income – but balancing work and family life is still often treated as a matter of personal responsibility (or, frequently, as a personal failing).View image in fullscreenTo improve mothers’ lives, Leonard found, a commitment to flexible gender norms – in the home and at work – must be coupled with a robust social safety net.Each of the women in Four Mothers struggled with male partners who, in various ways and for assorted reasons, failed to provide as much childcare as the mothers. Sarah, a teacher in Utah, was married to an Amazon delivery driver who got zero parental leave. Sarah was entitled to three months of leave, at partial pay, but only because her union advocated for it. Although Sarah and her husband chose to leave the Mormon church, she found herself longing for the community that the church provided because it offered some form of support and acknowledgment of motherhood.Finland perhaps fares the best in Leonard’s book. The country, which gives parents about a year of paid leave, invests heavily in its maternal care system and has some of the lowest infant and maternal mortality rates in the world; it even offers mothers prenatal counseling where they can discuss their own childhoods and how to break cycles of intergenerational trauma. (The US, by contrast, has the highest maternal mortality rate of any wealthy country.) Finland is also the only industrialized nation on the planet where fathers spend more time with their children than mothers do. (The difference is about eight minutes, “about as even as it can be”, Leonard wrote in Four Mothers.) Parents are also happier than non-parents in Finland – which is routinely ranked as the happiest country in the world – while the inverse is true in the US.View image in fullscreenStill, the birth rate is on the decline in Finland, just as it is in Japan and the US. It is not clear what kinds of pronatalist policies, if any, induce people to have kids. Nearly 60% of Americans under 50 who say they are unlikely to have children say that’s because “they just don’t want to”.“The pronatal argument here – that’s really focused on people who make the choice not to have children. That is not only cruel and mean, but it’s also ineffective, because people who don’t want to have kids probably aren’t going to have kids and none of this stuff is going to make a difference,” Leonard said.That said, had she been building her family in the US rather than Japan, Leonard doesn’t know if she would have had three children. Given the cost of US childcare, “it would have been more of a grind”.“I just think it’s harder and more expensive here. So it was somewhat easier to have that third child there,” Leonard said. “It’s not because they gave me a $5,000 baby bonus.” More

  • in

    Trump news at a glance: Harvard threatened with more cuts as foreign universities seek to attract students

    Donald Trump delivered the traditional presidential Memorial Day speech at Arlington national cemetery and also attacked judges on social media, talking up his own achievements and threatening Harvard University with further cuts to its funding.Trump posted on his social media platform: “I am considering taking Three Billion Dollars of Grant Money away from a very antisemitic Harvard, and giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land.”Harvard has launched legal actions over what it said was Trump’s attempt to “gain control of academic decision-making” at the university and his administration’s threat to review about $9bn in federal funding. Last week the Trump administration announced it would revoke federal permission for the institution to enrol international students. A federal judge issued an injunction within hours, temporarily blocking such a ban.Here’s what’s been happening.Former Harvard president urges people to ‘speak out’ against threats to US democracyA recent former president of Harvard University has urged people to “speak out” in defence of “foundational threats” to values such as freedom, autonomy and democracy in the US.Drew Gilpin Faust, the first female president of Harvard, also warned of US constitutional checks and the rule of law being “at risk” under the current administration, even as Donald Trump issued a fresh threat against the elite university as it seeks to repel his assaults on its independence and funding.Read the full storyHong Kong targets ‘top talent’ as Harvard faces international student banHong Kong’s education bureau has called on the city’s universities to “attract top talent” by opening their doors to those affected by the Trump administration’s attempt to ban Harvard from enrolling international students.Harvard has launched legal action against the ban but done little to assuage concerns among students thrown into limbo. Experts have warned the US the ban could be a boon for foreign institutions looking to attract talent.Read the full storyTrump peppers Memorial Day speech with boasting and partisan attacksDonald Trump honoured the sacrifices of US military veterans in the traditional presidential Memorial Day speech at Arlington national cemetery, but also peppered his address on Monday with partisan political asides while talking up his own plans and achievements.The US president laid a wreath and paid tribute to fallen soldiers and gave accounts of battlefield courage as tradition dictates. But Trump also veered off into rally-style personal boasting and brief partisan attacks during the solemn event.Read the full storyTourists from countries badly hit by Trump tariffs are staying away from USHolidaymakers in countries hit the hardest by Trump’s trade tariffs are taking the US off their list for trips abroad, according to online travel booking data.Hotel search site Trivago has seen double-digit percentage declines in bookings to the US from travellers based in Japan, Canada and Mexico. The latter two countries were the first on Trump’s tariff hit list when he announced tariffs of 25% on 1 February.Read the full storyTrump and Pete Hegseth inspiring Islamic State recruitment propagandaExperts have told the Guardian that Islamic State is capitalising on Trump’s dismantling of the international order, his affinity for the Benjamin Netanyahu government in Israel and most of all his appointment of Pete Hegseth as Pentagon chief, using it in propaganda for recruitment.Read the full storyWhat else happened today:

    Former government officials have told the Guardian that Trump’s quid pro quo approach to foreign policy has more in common with his predecessors than it first appears. Where he does differ, they argue, is in his shameless abandonment of moral leadership and use of the US presidency for personal gain.

    Cuts to AmeriCorps – the US agency for national service and volunteerism – were among the harshest doled out by Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge). Those cuts are already disrupting LA wildfire recovery.
    Catching up? Here’s what happened on 25 May 2025. More

  • in

    Tourists from countries badly hit by Trump tariffs are staying away from US

    Holidaymakers in countries hit the hardest by Donald Trump’s trade tariffs are taking the US off their list for trips abroad, according to online travel booking data.Findings from the hotel search site Trivago also suggest that UK and US travellers are increasingly choosing domestic holidays amid concerns over an uncertain economy.The company has seen double-digit percentage declines in bookings to the US from travellers based in Japan, Canada and Mexico. The latter two countries were the first on Trump’s tariff hitlist when he announced tariffs of 25% on 1 February.Canadians in particular were incensed at Trump’s repeated suggestions that its northern neighbour would be better off annexed as the 51st state of the US.According to Trivago’s findings, which were shared with PA Media, demand among Germans was also “down heavily”, with hotel bookings in the US showing a single-digit percentage decline.Germany is the largest economy in the EU, which Trump has repeatedly threatened with increased tariffs, most recently saying on Sunday he had “paused” a 50% tax he intended to introduce next month.There has not been a significant change in the numbers of UK holidaymakers travelling to the US. The UK has so far faced some of the lightest tariffs globally and last month struck a “breakthrough” trade deal with the US.Businesses operating in its $2.6tn tourism industry are becoming increasingly concerned about a “Trump slump” due to the turmoil the president’s tariff war is causing on the global economy.Last month, the federal government’s National Travel and Tourism Office released preliminary figures showing visits to the US from overseas fell by 11.6% in March compared with the same month last year.Bookings made via Expedia-owned Trivago also show that Americans are spending less on their trips, while there is higher demand for cheaper hotels and lower star categories.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump has levied tariffs on more than 180 countries, but has paused many of his tariffs for periods of up to 90 days while governments seek to negotiate deals.Recent booking data shows that in the UK there has been a 25% year-on-year leap in demand for domestic travel for the important months of July to September.“In times of uncertainty, people stay closer to home,” said Johannes Thomas, chief executive of Trivago.Trivago’s research has shown that London is the top destination for British tourists, followed by Edinburgh, where demand is up by nearly 30%, then York, Blackpool and Manchester. More