Donald Trump

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump announces more than $200bn of deals between US and UAE

      by

      Donald Trump has announced deals totaling more than $200bn between the United States and the United Arab Emirates, including a $14.5bn commitment among Boeing, GE Aerospace and Etihad Airways, as he pledged to strengthen ties between the US and the Gulf state during a multiday trip to the Middle East.The White House said on Thursday that Boeing and GE had received a commitment from Etihad Airways to invest $14.5bn to buy 28 US-made Boeing 787 and 777X aircraft powered by GE engines.“With the inclusion of the next-generation 777X in its fleet plan, the investment deepens the longstanding commercial aviation partnership between the UAE and the United States, fueling American manufacturing, driving exports,” the White House said.Antonoaldo Neves, the CEO of Etihad, said last month that the airline planned to add 20 to 22 new planes to its fleet of roughly 100 aircraft this year, as it aims to expand to more than 170 planes by 2030 and boost Abu Dhabi’s economic diversification strategy.Etihad, which is owned by Abu Dhabi’s $225bn wealth fund ADQ, has been through a multiyear restructuring and management shake-up, but has expanded under Neves.He said that 10 of the new aircraft this year would be Airbus A321LRs, which the carrier launched on Monday and will start operating in August. The remainder include six Airbus A350s and four Boeing 787s.The news follows a Wednesday announcement that Boeing had landed its largest-ever deal for wide-body airplanes, after securing an order for $96bn worth of Boeing jets from Qatar.The deal-making comes as the US president nears the ends of his multiday tour in the Middle East. Controversy has dogged the visit after the president announced earlier this week that he planned to accept a $400m luxury jumbo jet from the government of Qatar, raising numerous ethical concerns.Trump has since doubled down on his plans to accept the airplane as the new Air Force One, and eventually transfer it to his presidential library. “We’re the United States of America. I believe we should have the most impressive plane,” he said on Wednesday. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans say they want more American babies – but which kind?

      by

      Some of the children were too young to stand on their own. Instead, they sat on their parents’ knees or in their parents’ arms, waving American flags. Many of them seemed confused about what, exactly, was even happening.But these kids were in the midst of making history: their families were among the first to take advantage of Donald Trump’s February executive order granting white South Africans refugee status in the United States, on the grounds that Afrikaner landowners – who make up just 7% of South Africa’s population yet, decades after the end of apartheid, control about half of its land – are facing persecution. While the doors to the US refugee program have been slammed shut to virtually everyone else, these Afrikaners showed up in the US earlier this week, their refugee status promising a path to US citizenship.Days later, the Trump administration took a far narrower view of who deserves access to the American polity. On Thursday morning, a lawyer for the Trump administration argued in front of the US supreme court that the 14th amendment does not guarantee citizenship to the American-born children of “illegal aliens” – a view contradicted by more than a century of legal precedent.This split screen raises a vital question: is the Trump administration really interested in helping children and families flourish – or only the “right” families?Over the last several months, the Trump administration’s policies on immigration, families, and children have been pockmarked by all kinds of contradictions. The administration is reportedly considering numerous policies to convince people to have more children, such as “baby bonuses” of $5,000 or medals for mothers who have six or more kids. The Department of Transportation has issued a memo directing the agency to “give preference to communities with marriage and birth rates higher than the national average”. And JD Vance has proclaimed: “I want more babies in the United States of America.”These moves are, in part, fueled by the growing power of the pronatalism movement, which believes that the declining birthrate in the US is an existential threat to its workforce and its future.Why, then, does the government want to exclude an estimated 150,000 babies born every year?“It’s hard to look at any of these policies and not believe that they’re created for the purpose of satisfying a political base that was promised some sort of notions of recreating a nostalgia for a white Christian nationalist nation,” said P Deep Gulasekaram, a professor of immigration law at the University of Colorado Law School.If the fate of the US workforce is really of concern, experts say immigration could help grow it – but the Trump administration has taken a hardline stance against immigrants from the Global South and their children. The administration has not only reportedly turned the refugee agency responsible for caring for children who arrive in the US alone into an arm of Ice, but also slashed funding for legal representation of children in immigration proceedings. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are trying to block parents who lack Social Security Numbers – such as undocumented people – from benefiting from the child tax credit, even in cases where their children are US citizens.The Trump administration has also unveiled new screening protocols that make it far more difficult for undocumented people to “sponsor”, or take custody of, children who enter the US alone. Just last week, the National Center for Youth Law and the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward sued the Trump administration over the changes, which they say have forced kids to languish in government custody. Between December 2024 and March 2025, kids went from spending an average of two months in government custody to spending an average of six.“This administration has compromised the basic health and safety of immigrant children in egregious ways,” Neha Desai, managing director of children’s human rights and dignity at the National Center for Youth Law, said in an email.In March, KFF, a charity that conducts health policy research, conducted focus groups of Hispanic adults who are undocumented or likely living with someone who is undocumented. Many spoke of the effect that the Trump administration’s policies are having on their families and kids.“I have a six-year-old child. Honestly, I’m afraid to take him to the park, and he asks me, ‘Mom, why don’t we go to the park?’” one 49-year-old Costa Rican immigrant woman told KFF. “How do I tell him? I’m scared.”“Even the children worry. ‘Mom, did you get home safely?’ They’re already thinking that something is going to happen to us on the street,” added a 54-year-old Colombian immigrant woman. “So that also makes me very nervous, knowing that there might come a time when they could be left here alone.”The supreme court arguments on Thursday centered not on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, but on the legality of lower court orders in the case. Still, some of the justices expressed concerns about what the case could mean for children.Eliminating birthright citizenship, Justice Elena Kagan suggested, could render children stateless. The high court needed a way to act fast, she said.If the justices believe that a court order is wrong, she asked, “why should we permit those countless others to be subject to what we think is an unlawful executive action?”Both the historical and legal record make clear that the 14th Amendment encapsulates birthright citizenship, Gulasekaram said. But, he said, predicting the supreme court’s moves is a “fool’s errand”.“There’s really no way of getting around the the conclusion that this is a call to some form of racial threat and racial solidarity as a way of shoring up support from a particular part of the of the of the Trump base,” Gulasekaram said. “Citizenship and the acquisition of citizenship has always been racially motivated in the United States.” More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican push to cut green tax credits would raise utility bills, new data shows

      by

      As House Republicans propose taking a sledgehammer to the green tax credits in Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, new data shows the loss of those incentives could lower some Americans’ household income by more than $1,000 a year due to increased utility bills and job losses.Though Donald Trump has called climate spending a “waste” of money, the data – published by the industry group Clean Energy Buyers Association (Ceba) on Thursday – provides evidence that rescinding them would actually increase expenses for ordinary Americans in red and blue districts alike.The rollback would increase the price of electricity and gas, the report found. And it would lead to job losses and “economic slowdown”, it says.“Americans voted to combat the cost-of-living crisis in the 2024 election,” said Rich Powell, CEO of Ceba. “Now is the time for Congress to incentivize private investment in more sources of low-cost, reliable energy that fuels economic growth and jobs, helps the United States secure energy dominance and independence, and decreases energy costs nationwide.”The new figures, crunched for Ceba by the National Economic Research Associates consulting firm, focus specifically on credits 48E and 45Y, for clean energy investment and production respectively. In a reconciliation package draft this week, the House ways and means committee proposed phasing out these incentives after 2031, and placing many new restrictions on them in the meantime.If the rollbacks proceed as proposed, the new study found, at least 19 states would see the cost of energy increase for both consumers and industry between 2026 to 2032. (More states would probably see similar impacts, but the authors did not examine all 50 “because of the turnaround time for research”, Ceba said).New Jersey is the state expected to see the biggest economic losses if the clean energy investment and production credits are repealed, the authors found. There, the authors found the rollback could increase household gas and utility bills by 2.9% and 13.3% respectively. The repeal would also trigger the loss of 22,180 jobs, they found.All told, households across the state would see a stunning $1,040 average loss in annual household income and a $3.24bn decrease in state GDP, the authors wrote.“As commercial and industrial activity declines, demand for labor and capital falls, leading to wage losses, declining household income, and shrinking investment,” the research says.The authors’ outlook for state-level electricity markets assumes an incremental growth in electricity demand due to the growth of data centers. Some of Ceba’s members are tech giants – including Amazon, Google and Meta – who are bringing more data centers online.An earlier Ceba report, published in February, forecast the effect on electricity prices alone across all 50 states. If the clean energy investment and production credits are repealed, the average American household would see their annual household utility bills increase by $110 by 2026, it found.Wyoming would see the largest rise of 29.5% on average for households across the state, the earlier report found. More

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      This pregnant woman sued Trump over birthright citizenship. Now it’s up to the supreme court

      by

      With the highest court in the US poised to hear her case – and decide her family’s future – Monica was keeping busy babyproofing her house.Monica is a plaintiff in one of three lawsuits challenging Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order, a case that is being heard before the nation’s highest court on Thursday. She’s expecting her first child in early August.The Guardian first spoke with her in January, not long after Trump took office and signed an executive order seeking to end the constitutionally recognized right of birthright citizenship. Since then, she said, her belly has grown bigger, her feet more swollen. And she is still waiting to see whether her baby will be born as a citizen, or stateless.“We can only wait and hope,” she said. “Let’s wait in faith and trust in the laws of this country.”The Guardian is not publishing Monica’s surname, to protect her from retribution. She and her husband fled political persecution in Venezuela in 2019, and came to the US seeking asylum. The couple had been waiting for their immigration court hearing when they found out, in early January, that Monica was pregnant.“We were so excited,” she said. Just two weeks later, news of Trump’s executive order landed like a blow. Acquiring Venezuelan citizenship for their child would be impossible – both Monica and her husband were outspoken critics of their country’s autocratic leader, Nicolás Maduro – and contacting the government could put them in danger.“I had to fight for my baby,” she said.She had been a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (Asap), a non-profit group that advocates for immigrant rights, and when lawyers from the group reached out to expecting parents to see if any would like to join a lawsuit challenging Trump’s order, Monica felt compelled to respond.Two immigration advocacy groups, Asap and Casa, are named as plaintiffs alongside Monica and four other mothers in one of three cases challenging the executive order. A second case was filed by four states and pregnant women, and a third by 18 states, the District of Columbia and San Francisco. The supreme court is hearing these cases consolidated as one.Other than her mother and a few close relatives, nobody knows that she is involved in one of the most closely watched cases to come before the supreme court this year. She has concealed her identity and tried to maintain a low profile, to avoid biasing her family’s asylum case, and to protect her family in Venezuela.But the topic of birthright citizenship and the administration’s intention to end it often comes up in her conversations with friends – especially with immigrant mothers who, like her, worry about their babies’ futures. “We are all on standby,” she said.They worry, too, about news that mothers are being separated from their babies – or being deported alongside their children. “Every day there are new changes, there are new executive orders about us immigrants,” she said. “Every day there is more fear in immigration conditions.”In the meantime, she said, there’s nothing to do but focus on the day to day. Monica and her husband have kept busy getting their home baby-ready, purchasing and assembling cribs and car seats. Now that she’s in her third trimester, she’s packed a go-bag with a change of clothes and other essentials – ready in case she needs to rush to the hospital. “We’re really down to the last few weeks already,” she said.Recently, they settled on a name. More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Stephen Miller is wrong: the president can’t just suspend habeas corpus | Austin Sarat

      by

      The writ of habeas corpus is much older than the US constitution. That writ, which enables people detained by the government to challenge their detention in court, has been regarded as an essential bulwark of liberty in the English-speaking world since the 15th century.In this country, Alexander Hamilton said the writ of habeas corpus provides “greater security to liberty and republicanism” than any other provision in the constitution. And in his first inaugural address, President Thomas Jefferson called the protections provided by habeas corpus one of the “essential principles of our Government”.But you would never know that from what Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, said on Friday. Talking to reporters outside the White House, Miller reported that the administration was “actively looking at” the possibility of suspending the writ of habeas corpus for people who are in the country illegally.What Miller said suggests he is either ignorant about the constitution or he just doesn’t care. Either way, the authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus is vested in Congress, not the president.Miller’s comments should be a wake-up call for Mike Johnson, the speaker of the House of Representatives, and John Thune, the Republican majority leader in the Senate. By defending Congress’s prerogatives, the Republican leaders could defuse another brewing constitutional crisis – and act in line with what the founders of the American republic would want.Miller’s remarks come after a string of defeats in federal courts over the arbitrary way Trump and his colleagues have handled what they see as the crisis of illegal immigration. And now Miller seems to think that the president can unilaterally strip those people of a right guaranteed to everyone in the government’s custody, regardless of their citizenship status.“Well”, he observed, “the constitution is clear – and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land – that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion.” Yesterday, the homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, joined Miller in claiming that the level of illegal border crossings under Joe Biden counted as a constitutional reason to suspend the right.They are right that the writ can be suspended.But, whatever one thinks about what Biden did when he was in office, there is no invasion. The Department of Homeland Security itself says that the first 100 days of the Trump administration have produced “The Most Secure Border in American History”.And even if there was, the constitution’s text suggests that the president cannot suspend what Miller called the “privilege” of habeas corpus. The suspension clause is in article I of the constitution, where the powers of Congress are enumerated, not in article II, which deals with the executive branch.The language of the constitution also makes clear that the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended only if Congress determines that there is a “Rebellion or Invasion” and that “the public Safety may require it”.Looking back at the constitutional convention is also instructive. The convention considered but did not adopt the following language: “The privileges and benefits of the writ of habeas corpus … shall not be suspended by the Legislature except upon the most urgent and pressing occasions, and for a limited time …”Instead, the convention adopted the language of article I, section 9, that “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” And in 1807, Chief Justice John Marshall cleared up any doubt about which branch of government could suspend habeas corpus.He wrote: “If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so.” Joseph Story, a prominent early commentator on the constitution and the convention that proposed it, also confirmed that “the power is given to Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion.”In fact, the writ of habeas corpus has only been suspended four times in American history. The first time was in 1861 when President Lincoln, acting without congressional authority, suspended it in Maryland, a border state, to address potential threats to the capital.Habeas corpus was also suspended in South Carolina in places that were overrun by the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction; in the Philippines during an insurrection against US rule in 1905; and in Hawaii following the bombing of Pearl Harbor.With respect to Lincoln’s unilateral action, Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled it was unconstitutional, saying about the suspension clause: “Congress is of necessity the judge of whether the public safety does or does not require it; and its judgment is conclusive.” Since then, the supreme court has consistently reiterated Taney’s view.For example, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, when suspected terrorists were held without trial in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Justices Antonin Scalia and John Paul Stevens wrote: “the Constitution’s Suspension Clause … allows Congress to relax the usual protections temporarily.”It is time for Republican congressional leaders to look in the mirror. Five years ago, senator Thune claimed that “Republicans believe in … the Constitution, and that’s what dictates what happens.” Similarly, speaker Johnson’s website proudly proclaims: “Each branch of government must adhere to the Constitution, and… Congress must faithfully perform its constitutional responsibility.”They should live up to those pronouncements and heed Story’s admonition that “the practice of arbitrary imprisonments has been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.” Now would be a good time for them to tell the president that they will not allow him to ignore the constitution and usurp a power that it assigns exclusively to Congress.

      Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College, is the author or editor of more than 100 hundred books, including Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America’s Death Penalty More

    • 238 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Why is Maga-land so obsessed with Kai Trump turning 18? Do you really need to ask? | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      Kai Trump, the president’s granddaughter and the eldest of Donald Trump Jr’s five children, has just turned 18. To be clear, I do not have a list of Trump family birthdays on my fridge. But it has been forced upon my consciousness because an awful lot of people in Trumpworld are being weird about it.Fox News, for example, decided to post both an Instagram message (which got more than 87,000 likes) and a tweet wishing Kai a very happy 18th birthday. Which is a little odd considering that the high school student is not a public figure. Kai, who has a large social media following, did briefly speak at the Republican national convention last year and has posted support for her grandfather, but that doesn’t seem to justify a birthday announcement by a major media network.Especially, by the way, as Fox News doesn’t appear to have been so excited about Barron Trump when he turned 18. (Although it did put up an Instagram post on Barron’s 19th birthday, with a quote from Donald calling him a “a very smart guy”.) It’s almost – and bear with me here – as if they have some sort of weird interest in the fact that a teenage girl has turned 18.Am I accusing the folk at Fox News of being a bunch of creeps? Absolutely not! I’d never do that. Although if you look at the reactions to the Fox News posts or the comments attached to a New York Post Page Six piece about Kai’s birthday, there are plenty of people out there who should be on some sort of watchlist or registry. Particularly the people who have read far too much into the fact that Kai recently posted a TikTok video of her and three friends dancing to Promiscuous by Nelly Furtado and Timbaland with the caption: “last day being 17″.While things have moved on somewhat, there’s also a very depressing history of media figures counting down to young girls turning the age of consent. Look at British singer Charlotte Church, who got a record deal as an opera singer when she was just 12. There was a media frenzy in 2002 when she turned 16 (the age of consent in England). On her birthday, Chris Moyles, a BBC radio DJ who was 28 at the time, publicly announced he wanted to “lead her through the forest of sexuality now she had reached 16”. Making this disgusting comment didn’t ruin Moyles’s career, by the way. Just like 38-year-old Jerry Seinfeld dating a 17-year-old high schooler hasn’t hurt the billionaire comedian’s career at all either.Harry Potter star Emma Watson has also talked about being sexualized by the media when she was a teenager. Watson has said the paparazzi even took photos up her skirt, and published them in an English tabloid, the moment she turned 18 and it was “legal”.It was a similar story with twins Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, who have been on TV since they were tiny. In 2004 numerous websites started counting down to their 18th birthday including the “Olsen Twin Jailbait Countdown Clock” run by radio shock jocks Lex Staley and Terry Jaymes. The New York Post also crowed about the twins being “legal”.More recently, in 2018, a radio host called Patrick Connor called Olympic athlete Chloe Kim, then just 17 years old, a “little hot piece of ass”. Conner then referenced Wooderson, a character in the film Dazed and Confused who pursues high school girls. “Her 18th birthday is 23 April, and the countdown is on baby, ’cause I got my Wooderson going,” said Connor. “‘That’s what I like about them high school girls.’” In a sign that some progress has made when it comes to mainstream misogyny, Connor was forced to apologize for the remark and fired.Since we live in litigious times I would like to reiterate, once again, that while some people (not me!) have accused Fox News of being creepy about Kai, I’m sure they meant nothing sinister by their post. After all, unlike depraved liberals, the Maga crowd are an extremely wholesome bunch who live and die for family values.I will concede, however, that it is sometimes hard to wrap one’s head around the Maga definition of “family values”. The president, for example, is a legally defined sexual predator who has also been accused, by Miles Taylor, a staffer in Trump’s first administration, of sexualizing his oldest daughter Ivanka.In a book published in 2023, Taylor writes: “[Trump] said he talked about Ivanka Trump’s breasts, her backside, and what it might be like to have sex with her, remarks that once led [former chief of staff] John Kelly to remind the president that Ivanka was his daughter.”Former Fox News star Tucker Carlson also seems to have a strange definition of family values. I’m sorry to remind you of this if you’ve wiped it from your memory but last year Carlson made an extraordinary (even by Maga standards) speech at a Trump rally in which he likened the now president to an angry father spanking his daughter.“I’m not going to lie. It’s going to hurt you a lot more than it hurts me,” Carlson said. “And you earned this. You’re getting a vigorous spanking because you’ve been a bad girl. You’re only going to get better when you take responsibility for what you did. It has to be this way.’” The crowd then erupted into chants of “Daddy Don”!Maga also seems to adopt different values, depending on what sort of family they’re looking at. Conservative influencers were vile about Ella Emhoff, Kamala Harris’s stepdaughter, when Harris was running for president. Newsweek senior editor Josh Hammer wrote: “Doug Emhoff’s daughter is like something out of a horror film,” for example. Podcast host Benny Johnson also called Emhoff and her father “creepy” for having their arms around each other in a video. The right seems eager to scrutinize the family of politicians when they don’t agree with their politics. They went on the warpath, however, when a former NBCUniversal executive joked about Barron being “fair game” (meaning that it was OK for the press to criticize him) when he turned 18.Anyway, happy birthday to Kai Trump. At 18 she is still very young – but it would seem like it’s the Maga adults who have the real growing up to do. More

    • 200 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Keep calm (but delete your nudes): the new rules for travelling to and from Trump’s America

      by

      Kindness doesn’t cost a thing. Putting up a big “no foreigners welcome” sign, threatening to annex your neighbour, and throwing visitors to your country into detention for minor visa infractions, however? Such actions are expensive. The United States is on track to lose $12.5bn (£9.4bn) in international travel spending this year, according to a study published on Tuesday by the World Travel and Tourism Council.If the Trump administration is concerned that its aggressive rhetoric is costing tourist dollars, it’s not showing it. During a recent press conference about the 2026 Fifa World Cup, which will be jointly hosted by the US, Mexico and Canada, vice president JD Vance joked about deporting football fans who outstay their welcome. “We’ll have visitors from close to 100 countries. We want them to come…” Vance said. “But when the time is up, they’ll have to go home, otherwise they’ll have to talk to [Homeland Security] secretary Noem.” That’s Kristi Noem, the woman who shot her own dog. Not someone you want to talk to when she’s in a bad mood.Judging by the drop-off in visitors, many people have decided that a trip to the US just isn’t worth the risk right now. As a green card holder – and someone with family in the UK who have been thoroughly put off coming to visit the US – this is a question I’ve been wrestling with for the past few months. So, for somewhat selfish reasons, I spoke to a number of immigration lawyers and civil rights experts to try to figure out the new rules, across different demographics, for travelling to and from Trump’s America.View image in fullscreenFirst, though: the big picture. It is hard to quantify exactly how much things have changed at the border since the start of Trump’s second term. There have been plenty of scary stories in the news but that might not reflect a policy shift – it could just mean the media is paying more attention to the subject. Murali Bashyam, an immigration lawyer based in North Carolina, believes that while “there are more issues at the port-of-entry than before”, fears of being detained “are overblown to some extent”.Other immigration lawyers are more worried. Camille Mackler, executive director of a legal service provider collaborative called Immigrant Arc, stresses: “Things have fundamentally shifted – although whether that shift is happening systematically at the airport level or on an individual officer level is harder to say.” But, she says, there seems to be a clear trend: “The Trump administration wants to increase deportation numbers, and they’re going after any case they can. Enforcement has become much more aggressive.”According to Golnaz Fakhimi, legal director of Muslim Advocates, one of the biggest shifts is “the targeting of non-citizens based on viewpoints and ideology”. There are two executive orders that set the stage for this targeting: EO 1461 Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats, and EO 14188, Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism. The first EO lays the groundwork to deport or deny entry to foreigners based on their political and cultural views. The second uses a broad definition of antisemitism that includes criticism of Israel’s policies or government.Since Trump passed those orders, says Fakhimi, “there’s been a lot of rhetoric reinforcing those policies and we’ve seen actual instances of what looks like viewpoint-based scrutiny. All of this points to a kind of risk that non-citizens – including lawful permanent residents – should be aware of, especially when it comes to ideological expression.”View image in fullscreenCriticism of the Israeli government or support for Palestinian rights seems to be at the “forefront of what’s being targeted” now, says Fakhimi. “But many of us worry that the scrutiny won’t stay limited to those viewpoints. It may already be expanding. There was one case reported in the media involving a French researcher who was denied entry, possibly because of content on their phone that was critical of the US president. Inside the US, we’ve also seen targeting of immigrant-rights activists – Jeanette Vizguerra in Colorado for example.”Kseniia Petrova, a Russian-born researcher at Harvard Medical School who has been detained since February, may have been targeted because of her political views. “So it’s important for non-citizens to be clear-eyed about what viewpoints they’ve publicly expressed – especially online – when considering the risks of international travel.”View image in fullscreenIt’s also prudent to assume that your social media activity has been examined. “Social media identifiers are now required on forms like the visa application or Esta [for the visa waiver programme],” says Sophia Cope, senior staff attorney on the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s civil liberties team. “We’ve heard anecdotal reports of agents referencing social media during questioning.”It is not only non-citizens who should be worried. Hasan Piker, a left-wing YouTuber and US citizen, was recently held and questioned for hours by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials in Chicago after returning from France. In a video, Piker says the agents seemed to know who he was and asked about his political beliefs, including repeated questions about his views of Hamas. A CBP official called the suggestion that Piker was targeted for his political views “baseless”.View image in fullscreenAmir Makled, a Lebanese-American lawyer representing one of the University of Michigan pro-Palestine campus protesters, was recently stopped at Detroit Metro airport and interrogated by a tactical terrorism response team agent. Makled has said the agents knew exactly who he was; his phone was searched and they asked about his contacts. Eventually, he was allowed to go home.The Makled case was very troubling, says Cope, because it suggests targeting based on political association. “CBP denied this, but during the inspection, they asked to see his contact list. That implies they weren’t interested in him, but in who he knew. That’s outrageous. We litigated a case on this for four years – unfortunately, the courts didn’t rule in our favour – but we learned that CBP believes it has the authority to search devices not just when the traveller is a suspect, but also to gather intelligence on someone else the traveller may be connected to … It’s a form of dragnet intelligence gathering.”When it comes to intelligence gathering at the border, officials have carte blanche. After your international flight lands on US soil and before you clear customs, you are in something of a no man’s land in relation to civil rights. “The normal fourth amendment requirement of a warrant or individualised suspicion doesn’t apply,” says Nate Freed Wessler, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union. Some states offer slightly more protection than others, however. In the ninth circuit, which covers the western US, the rules are “most protective”, says Wessler. “For a manual search (where an agent is just scrolling through your phone), no individual suspicion is needed, but the search must be for digital contraband – like classified documents.“For a forensic search, where they plug your phone into a device to extract and analyse the entire contents, there must be reasonable suspicion that the phone contains digital contraband. And if the purpose is anything else, like gathering intelligence or helping another domestic agency, then a warrant would be required.”For most of the country, however, it’s anything goes. “The only minimal protection CBP has in their policy is distinguishing between manual and forensic searches. For a forensic search, they say they need reasonable suspicion, but they don’t define what that means. For a manual search, there are no guardrails. They argue it’s less invasive, but that’s just not true. They can still do keyword searches and spend hours combing through your device.”View image in fullscreenThey don’t have access to everything on your phone, however. Customs and Border Protection policy requires agents to put devices in flight mode before searching, to avoid accessing cloud data. It’s not a bad idea to put your phone in flight mode before you travel to understand what is stored on the cloud and what is local.What if you refuse to give your passcode to officers or say you don’t consent to a search? Consequences differ depending on your immigration status. If you’re a green card holder or citizen they can still take your phone. “They can’t compel you to give your passcode, but they can seize the phone and send it to a forensic lab, where it might sit for weeks or months while they try to break into it,” says Wessler. “For visa holders, it’s trickier. If you refuse to unlock your phone, they may just deny you entry, claiming you’re not cooperating in assessing admissibility.” And in the very worst scenario they might throw you into a detention centre before sending you home.Searches, to be clear, are still very rare. “Claims that CBP is searching more electronic media due to the administration change are false,” CBP assistant commissioner of public affairs Hilton Beckham said in a statement last month. “CBP’s search numbers are consistent with increases since 2021, and less than 0.01% of travellers have their devices searched … Allegations that political beliefs trigger inspections or removals are baseless and irresponsible.”If you’re worried these allegations aren’t quite as baseless as CBP insists, Wessler says: “The safest approach is not to travel with data you wouldn’t want the US government to access.”Let’s say you’re a British citizen who has been outspoken, on social media and elsewhere, about your pro-Palestinian or anti-Trump views. Would it be a foolish idea to travel to the US right now? “I wouldn’t say ‘don’t come,’ but I’d say evaluate your risk and risk tolerance,” says Wessler. “The government is being extremely aggressive with students and activists, and there’s always a chance a border agent might act on something they find politically disagreeable. Most travellers are still fine – but the risk is real and well above zero.” So, basically, nothing is very clear? Pretty much, says Wessler. “The law is a complete mess, and people’s options are a complete mess. People just have to make a risk assessment based on extremely imperfect information.”The first step in making that risk assessment is to thoroughly understand the rules for the specific visa you’ll be travelling on or your immigration status. “The Foreign Affairs Manual is a great resource,” says immigration lawyer Tahmina Watson. “It’s what consular officers use, and it’s publicly accessible. It lays out what officers are looking for, visa by visa. We’re now advising clients more than ever to understand the B1/B2 visa rules. B1 is for business, B2 for tourism. When CBP asks why you’re here, they’re listening for key phrases – ‘I’m visiting my grandmother,’ ‘I’m going to Disneyland,’ etc. The manual also talks about proof of ties to your home country – job, house, bills. That stuff matters.”Having any sort of criminal record or contact with the criminal legal system is a major part of a risk assessment. “I just spoke with a US citizen who had married a green card holder,” says Watson. “They were returning from their honeymoon when he was detained. He had a conviction from when he was 18, served his time, and had travelled internationally for more than 30 years since without issue. But this time, he was detained, and it will be very difficult to get him out.”If you’re a green card holder with a criminal record, Watson strongly advises against leaving the country. “Not until you’ve spoken with a lawyer. Even a long-ago conviction can result in detention now.” If you’ve ever overstayed a visa, even for a day, you should also speak to a lawyer before travelling.Students have their own set of issues to look for. “For students or others with campus affiliations, we’d want to know if there’s been any scrutiny or disciplinary action at the university level,” says Fakhimi. “Another factor is whether any third parties have tried to spotlight or mischaracterise your views to attract federal attention. Groups like Betar US, for example, have devoted resources to building lists of political protesters they want deported.”And then, of course, you’ve got to think about any public statements you’ve made and whether you can or should delete them. “For some, minimising the visibility of their views might feel like the right way to reduce risk,” says Fakhimi. “For others, staying publicly vocal and visible with their beliefs might feel too important to compromise. It’s really about what trade-offs someone is willing to make, and what decision they can live with.”One thing that sustains Fakhimi, she says, is how many people are unwilling to censor themselves for their safety. “I’ve been incredibly moved and inspired by the courage of non-citizens – people with precarious status, even undocumented – who continue to speak out on a range of injustices. They see these issues as interconnected, and despite the risks, they’re standing firm.” Sometimes, staying true to your beliefs is more important than a trip to Disney World. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Supreme court to hear birthright citizenship dispute that could expand Trump’s power

      by

      The US supreme court will hear arguments on Thursday in a dispute that could significantly expand presidential power despite ostensibly focusing on Donald Trump’s contentious executive order ending birthright citizenship.The trio of cases before the court stem from the president’s January executive order that would deny US citizenship to babies born on American soil if their parents aren’t citizens or permanent residents. The plan is likely to be ultimately struck down, as it directly contradicts the 14th amendment, which grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States”.But Trump’s legal team isn’t asking the supreme court to rule on whether his policy is constitutional. Instead, they are challenging whether lower court judges should be able to block presidential orders nationwide – a move that could overall weaken judicial checks on executive power.Three federal judges have blocked the policy nationwide, including US district judge Deborah Boardman, who ruled that “no court in the country has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation.”But the justice department argues these “nationwide injunctions” unfairly tie the president’s hands. “These injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the Trump Administration,” the department wrote in a March filing. The administration is asking for the scope of the injunctions to be narrowed, so they only apply to the people, organizations or states that sued.If Trump prevails, his administration could potentially enforce his desired citizenship policy in parts of the country where specific courts haven’t blocked it – creating different citizenship rules in different states while legal challenges continue.The supreme court’s conservative majority, which includes three Trump appointees, has previously signaled skepticism about nationwide injunctions. Justice Neil Gorsuch called the issue a “question of great significance” requiring the court’s attention.Critics warn that limiting judges’ power to block policies nationwide would force people to file thousands of individual lawsuits to protect their rights.“If you literally have to bring separate cases for every single plaintiff, you are limiting the ability of courts to declare what the law is and protect people,” Colorado attorney general Phil Weiser, who joined legal challenges to Trump’s order, told NBC News.By the end of March, Trump had faced at least 17 nationwide injunctions since returning to office in January, according to the Congressional Research Service. His first term saw 86 such rulings – far more than other presidents including Joe Biden, who saw 28; Barack Obama who saw 12; and George W Bush who saw six. Trump has also faced at least 328 lawsuits nationwide as of 1 May, with judges blocking his actions more than 200 times, according to a Bloomberg analysis.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe administration has said that universal injunctions “have reached epidemic proportions since the start of” Trump’s second term, and claims they have prevented the executive branch “from performing its constitutional functions before any courts fully examine the merits of those actions”.Several Democratic attorneys general urged the court not to restrict judicial power at a time when “the government is aggressively issuing executive orders of dubious legality”.Three separate lawsuits have been consolidated into one challenge before the court on Thursday, which came via an emergency appeal in the court’s so-called “shadow docket”. The court’s ruling is expected by early July. More