Donald Trump

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump news at a glance: megabill hangs in balance as House Republicans struggle to convince holdouts

      by

      The House of Representatives was at a standstill on Wednesday as Republican leaders continued to try to rally holdouts against Donald Trump’s megabill, with speaker Mike Johnson saying “very positive” progress had been made toward passing it.The House stalled for hours on a procedural vote while Johnson and the White House worked to pressure a handful of Republicans to ensure they would vote to approve the sweeping tax-and-spending bill amid a razor-thin Republican majority and get it to Trump to sign in time for his self-imposed 4 July deadline.CBS parent company Paramount, meanwhile, agreed to pay $16m to settle a lawsuit filed by Trump over a broadcast interview, in what is likely to be seen as a further example of capitulation by media companies hoping to smooth relations with the president.Here are the day’s key US politics stories at a glance:House to vote on Trump’s big policy billDonald Trump’s signature tax-and-spending bill was hanging in the balance as Republicans struggled to muster sufficient votes in the US House of Representatives. A five-minute procedural vote remained open and tied on Wednesday, as Republican leaders told members they could leave the floor, suggesting they still did not have the numbers they needed.If passed, the bill would vastly expand the federal government’s immigration enforcement machinery and supercharge the president’s plan to carry out what he has vowed will be the largest deportation campaign in US history.Trump, vice-president JD Vance and speaker Mike Johnson spent much of the day trying to pressure conservatives to support the bill in the face of changes made by the Senate.Read the full storyParamount settles with Trump for $16m CBS parent company Paramount settled a lawsuit filed by Trump over a pre-election interview with Kamala Harris last October, in the latest concession by a media company to the US president, who has targeted outlets over what he describes as false or misleading coverage. Paramount said it would pay $16m to settle the suit, with the money allocated to Trump’s future presidential library and not paid to Trump “directly or indirectly”.Read the full storyChina transfixed as Musk turns against TrumpThe ill-fated bromance between the US president and the world’s richest man, which once raised questions about American oligarchy, is now being pored over by social media users in China, many of whom are Team Elon Musk.On Wednesday, the hashtag #MuskWantsToBuildAnAmericaParty went viral on Weibo, a Chinese social media platform similar to Musk’s X, receiving more than 37m views.Read the full storyUS tries to deport stateless Palestinian woman again despite judge’s orderThe US government has tried for the second time to deport a stateless Palestinian woman – according to court documents – despite a judge’s order barring her removal.Ward Sakeik, a 22-year-old newlywed, was detained in February on her way home from her honeymoon in the US Virgin Islands. Last month, the government attempted to deport her without informing her where she was being sent, according to her husband, Taahir Shaikh. An officer eventually told her she would be sent to the Israel border – just hours before Israel launched airstrikes on Iran.Read the full storyPentagon says US strikes set back Iran nuclear program ‘one to two years’The Pentagon has collected intelligence material that suggests Iran’s nuclear program was set back roughly one to two years as a result of the US strikes on three key facilities last month, the chief spokesperson at the defence department said at a news conference on Wednesday.Read the full storyPlanned Parenthood warns budget bill could slash abortion access in blue statesPlanned Parenthood stands to lose roughly $700m in federal funding if the US House passes the Republicans’ massive spending-and-tax bill, the organisation’s CEO said on Wednesday, amounting to what abortion rights supporters and opponents alike have called a “backdoor abortion ban”.Read the full storyWhat else happened today:

      New Trump administration rules that give millions of people a shorter timeframe to sign up for the Affordable Care Act’s healthcare coverage are facing a legal challenge from Democratic mayors around the country.

      The US and Vietnam struck a trade agreement that sets 20% tariffs on many of the south-east Asian country’s exports after last-minute negotiations, Trump and Vietnamese state media said on Wednesday.
      Catching up? Here’s what happened on 1 July 2025. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Pentagon says US strikes set back Iran nuclear program ‘one to two years’

      by

      The Pentagon has collected intelligence material that suggests Iran’s nuclear program was set back roughly one to two years as a result of the US strikes on three key facilities last month, the chief spokesperson at the defense department said at a news conference on Wednesday.The spokesperson, Sean Parnell, repeated Donald Trump’s claim that Iran’s key nuclear sites had been completely destroyed, although he did not offer further details on the origin of the assessments beyond saying it came from inside the defense department.“We have degraded their program by one to two years,” Parnell said at a news conference held at the Pentagon. “At least, intel assessments inside the department assess that.”Parnell’s description of the strikes marked a more measured estimate than Trump’s assertions about the level of destruction. A low-confidence Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report based on early assessments said Iran’s program was set back several months.The evolving picture of the severity of the damage to Iran’s nuclear program comes as US intelligence agencies have continued to push out new assessments, using materials that suggested the centrifuges at the key Fordow enrichment site were destroyed even if it was unclear whether the facility itself had caved in.Trump advisers have used that material, which include the use of video taken from B-2 bombers to confirm simulation models of shock waves destroying centrifuges and other Israeli intel from outside Fordow, to defend Trump’s assertions, two people familiar with the matter said.The extent of the damage to Iran’s nuclear program and the fate of the country’s stockpile of enriched uranium – which could quickly be turned into a crude nuclear weapon – is important because it could dictate how long the program has been set back.The head of the UN nuclear watchdog said on Sunday that Iran could be producing enriched uranium in a few months.“They can have in a matter of months, I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium,” Rafael Grossi the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said, adding “Iran is a very sophisticated country in terms of nuclear technology … You cannot undo the knowledge that you have or the capacities that you have.”The Pentagon’s preliminary DIA assessment, which was based on information from little more than 24 hours after the strikes, the Guardian previously reported, found the damage could range from Iran being able to restart the facility with new centrifuges to having to abandon it for future use.The DIA report assessed the program had been pushed back by several months, although that finding was made at the so-called “low-confidence” level, reflecting the early nature of the assessment and the uncertainty intelligence agencies have with initial conclusions.Trump advisers have pushed back on the DIA report and said privately the destruction of the centrifuges alone meant they had taken out a key component of Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons and meant it delayed the nuclear program by years.Battles over the conclusions of intelligence agencies have been at the center of American foreign policy determinations for decades, from warnings about Iraq’s weapons programs that the Bush administration used to justify the 2003 invasion that were later found to be false, to claims that a Chinese lab leak was responsible for Covid.Still, much of the controversy about the US strikes has been generated by Trump’s claiming that they “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear sites, which no intelligence agency has directly repeated because it is not a characterization used in intelligence assessments.Verifying the extent of the damage was made more difficult on Wednesday, after Iran put into effect a new law to suspend cooperation with the IAEA. Iran has accused the nuclear watchdog of siding with western countries and providing a justification for Israel’s airstrikes.A state department spokesperson called the move “unacceptable” and said Iran must fully comply with its nuclear non-proliferation treaty obligations, including by providing the IAEA with information on undeclared nuclear material and providing unrestricted access to any newly announced enrichment facility. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge blocks Trump’s attempt to bar asylum access at US-Mexico border

      by

      A federal court has ruled that Donald Trump’s proclamation of an “invasion” at the US-Mexico border is unlawful, saying that the president had exceeded his authority in suspending the right to apply for asylum at the southern border.As part of his crackdown on immigration, Trump abruptly closed the southern border to tens of thousands of people who had been waiting to cross into the US legally and apply for asylum, signing a proclamation on the day of his inauguration that directed officials to take action to “repel, repatriate, or remove any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States”.In a ruling on Wednesday, US district judge Randolph Moss ruled in favor of 13 people seeking asylum in the US and three immigrants’ rights groups who argued that it was unlawful to declare an invasion and unilaterally ban the right to claim asylum.Moss ruled that nothing in the Immigration and Nationality Act or the US constitution “grants the president or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the proclamation and implementing guidance”.He also asserted the constitution did not give the president the authority to “adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted and the regulations that the responsible agencies have promulgated”.The ruling will not take effect immediately; rather Moss has given the Trump administration 14 days to seek emergency relief from the federal appeals court. But if Moss’s ruling holds up, the Trump administration would have to renew processing asylum claims at the border.People fleeing persecution and danger in their home countries would still be subject to a slew of other measures that have restricted access to legal immigration pathways. But the ruling would require the homeland security department to offer people at the southern border at least some way to seek refuge in the US.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionFor now, crossings at the US-Mexico border have dropped sharply since the administration cut off legal pathways to enter and ramped up the active military presence in the region.But many who had journeyed to the border – fleeing extreme violence, authoritarianism and poverty in Central and South America, as well as Africa and Asia – remained stranded on the Mexican side, holding out hope in shelters for migrants. Others have dispersed into Mexico, seeking work or residency there.Advocates have warned that many of the migrants left in the lurch by Trump’s abrupt asylum ban have been put in vulnerable and dangerous situations. The plaintiffs in the case challenging Trump’s ban had fled persecution in Afghanistan, Ecuador, Cuba, Egypt, Brazil, Turkey and Peru. Some have already been removed from the US.The district court ruling comes after a landmark supreme court decision last week in a case challenging Trump’s attempt to unilaterally end the country’s longstanding tradition of birthright citizenship. On Friday, the country’s highest court ruled to curb the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding the president’s policies.But because the case challenging Trump’s asylum ban was filed as a class-action lawsuit, it is not affected by higher court’s restriction. More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      With his immigration bill, Canada’s prime minister is bowing to Trump | Tayo Bero

      by

      There are many stereotypes about Canada – that we are a nation of extremely polite people, a welcoming melting pot, and that we’re the US’s laid-back cousin who lives nextdoor.But right now, the Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney, is bucking all of that lore after pressure from the US in the form of Donald Trump’s “concerns” about undocumented migrants and fentanyl moving across the US-Canada border. In response, the recently elected Liberal PM put forward a 127-page bill that includes, among other worrying provisions, sweeping changes to immigration policy that would make the process much more precarious for refugees and could pave the way for mass deportations.If passed, Carney’s Strong Borders Act (or Bill C-2) would bar anyone who has been in the country for more than a year from receiving refugee hearings. That would apply retroactively to anyone who entered the country after June 2020. If they arrived on foot between official ports of entry, meanwhile, they would have to apply for asylum within 14 days of entering Canada – a disastrous outcome for people fleeing Trump’s persecution. The bill also gives the immigration minister’s office the authority to cancel immigration documents en masse.This bill has been widely condemned by politicians and advocacy groups such as Amnesty International and the Migrants Rights Network, who are rightly worried about just how much havoc a change like this could wreak. Jenny Wai Ching Kwan, a member of parliament for Vancouver East, told reporters the bill would breach civil liberties and basic rights.So what excuse does Canada have for this kind of 180 on its immigration legacy? According to the government, the aim of this legislation is to “keep Canadians safe by ensuring law enforcement has the right tools to keep our borders secure, combat transnational organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl, and crack down on money laundering”.In reality, Bill C-2 contains measures that the public safety minister, Gary Anandasangaree, has admitted were a response to “the concerns that have been posed by the White House”.“There are elements that will strengthen [our] relationships with the United States,” he said in a press conference. “There were a number of elements in the bill that have been irritants for the US, so we are addressing some of those issues.”Tim McSorley, the national coordinator for the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, condemned the federal government over the senselessness of this move. “If the government is serious about addressing concerns regarding illegal gun and drug trafficking, it must introduce legislation specifically tailored to that goal, as opposed to a wide-ranging omnibus bill,” he said.The demonization of immigrants has been a talking point for populist leaders throughout the west, so it’s not surprising to see Carney lean into that rhetoric in order to appease Trump. Spurred on by the xenophobic rhetoric coming out of the US, Britain, and large swaths of Europe, anyone who comes from away is forced to bear the blame for the economic messes and ensuing societal erosion these countries have found themselves battling.By feeding directly into this pipeline, Carney makes Canada not the powerful country poised to beat Trump at his dangerous games (elbows up, my foot), but a cowardly ally in the US’s campaign of terror against immigrants.

      Tayo Bero is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 213 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      The supreme court is cracking down on judges – and letting Trump run wild | Steven Greenhouse

      by

      Ever since Donald Trump returned to power, he has carried out an unprecedented assault against the country’s rule of law. But we can be thankful that one group of people – federal district court judges – have bravely stood up to him and his many illegal actions.His excesses include gutting federal agencies, deporting immigrants without due process, firing thousands of federal workers despite their legal protections, and ordering an end to birthright citizenship. Intent on upholding the constitution and rule of law, district court judges have issued more than 190 orders blocking or temporarily pausing Trump actions they considered illegal. Their decisions have slowed the US president’s wrecking ball as it demolishes federal agencies, devastates foreign aid, decimates scientific research and demoralizes government employees.Those of us who held out hope that the supreme court, as rightwing as it has become, would join the district courts and stand up to Trump had our hopes dashed in a big way last week. The six hard-right justices delivered a major victory to Trump as they rolled over like puppies and ruled that district court judges can no longer, except in very limited circumstances, issue nationwide injunctions to halt Trump’s illegalities.In the 6-3 decision, the justices ruled that when district judges are convinced that a presidential action is illegal, they can issue injunctions that only cover the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit – they can only issue nationwide injunctions if they conclude that such action is the only way to assure complete relief to the plaintiffs. (The court wrote that plaintiffs might still be able to win broad injunctions by bringing class actions.)That case, Trump v Casa, involved Trump’s executive order that prohibited birthright citizenship – despite the 14th amendment’s language specifically guaranteeing it. In that case, Trump challenged district court judges’ nationwide injunctions upholding birthright citizenship – three district court judges had found Trump’s order to be unconstitutional and issued nationwide injunctions. In the Casa case, the justices limited their ruling to the validity of nationwide injunctions, without ruling on the constitutionality of Trump’s ban on birthright citizenship.In a stinging dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the court’s supermajority of “complicity” with Trump’s efforts to make a “solemn mockery of our Constitution”. With Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joining her dissent, Sotomayor wrote that “by stripping federal courts” of their extensive injunctive powers, the supreme court “kneecaps the Judiciary’s authority to stop the Executive from enforcing even the most unconstitutional policies”.There are two big problems with the Casa decision. First, it gives a red light to what has been the most effective check on Trump’s illegalities and authoritarian power grab. Second, the ruling gives a gleaming green light to Trump to speed ahead with more illegal actions, knowing that district court judges will be far less able to crack down effectively on his lawless acts.For the liberal justices and many Trump critics, a huge concern is that when a district court judge now finds a Trump policy to be unlawful, the judge can enjoin it only for the plaintiffs in the case. Meanwhile Trump can continue imposing that policy in the 49 other states. In her separate dissent, Jackson wrote: “The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.”One thing seemed extraordinarily obtuse about the supermajority’s decision: they seemed infinitely more concerned that a district court judge’s nationwide injunction might exceed that judge’s legal authority than they were concerned about Trump’s unprecedented authoritarian actions and illegal excesses: his freezing of congressionally approved funding, his siccing the justice department on critics, his ordering retribution against law firms that hired lawyers he didn’t like, his freezing billions in grants to universities because they have diversity policies he detests.In the majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that judges don’t have “unbridled authority” to ensure that presidents comply with the law. While many political scientists are sounding the alarm that Trump is creating an authoritarian presidency insufficiently checked by the constitution’s separation of powers, Barrett warned of an “imperial judiciary”. The conservative supermajority failed to see the authoritarian forest for the trees; they seem blind to who is the real threat to our democracy. It isn’t district court judges upholding the law. It is a president who has suggested he’s above the law.The Casa decision continues a dangerous pattern in which the conservative justices bow to Trump. In another case last week, the court issued an unsigned decision, with the three liberal justices dissenting, that in effect said it was fine for Trump to deport immigrants to third countries, rather than their own, without giving them a chance to be heard about why that third country might be dangerous for them. Not only did the court let the Trump administration short-circuit due process in that case, but it gave Trump a victory in a case where his administration had twice disobeyed a district court judge’s orders. By failing to criticize the administration’s brazen defiance of a lower-court judge, the supermajority dangerously seemed to signal that it is OK for the administration to flout district judges’ orders.In another important case, the court ruled for Trump by halting a lower court’s order that Gwynne Wilcox be reinstated to the National Labor Relations Board, after Trump fired Wilcox without giving any reason, despite federal law saying NLRB members can be fired only for malfeasance. Then there was last year’s disastrous immunity decision, in which Chief Justice John Roberts, as if in a creative writing class, seemed to magically add new clauses to the constitution. Roberts’s majority ruling granted Trump presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for “official presidential acts” – a ruling that many legal scholars say has emboldened Trump to violate the law.Assuming the conservative supermajority wants to preserve our democracy and defend our constitution, it’s maddening and perplexing that they keep delivering victories to Trump. Perhaps they rule for him because they watch Fox News too much and believe Trump is a paragon of upholding the law. Or perhaps the justices fear that Trump will savage and ridicule them if they dare rule against the Maga king. Or perhaps the justices rule repeatedly for Trump because they fear he will defy their decisions if they rule against him – and they’ll become the first supreme court in history that a president repeatedly defies.In what is often called the most important supreme court case in history, Marbury v Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in 1803 that “it is emphatically” the role of the judiciary “to say what the law is”. Sadly, last week’s Casa decision turned Marbury on its head in many ways. By limiting the ability of district court judges to say what the law is and make sure the executive follows it, the court’s supermajority is giving Trump far more power than before to “say what the law is”. Without district courts able to issue quick nationwide injunctions to curb Trump’s many illegalities, it may take a year or two or more before the supreme court acts to put a nationwide halt to some of Trump’s more egregious illegal actions.Considering that Trump has described himself as king and talked of suspending the constitution, the supreme court is making a dangerous mistake in giving Trump more power while hamstringing the ability of brave, principled judges to rein in his excesses.

      Steven Greenhouse is a journalist and author, focusing on labour and the workplace, as well as economic and legal issues More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s sweeping tax cut and spending bill heads to House – US politics live

      by

      CBS parent company Paramount on Wednesday settled a lawsuit filed by Donald Trump over an interview broadcast in October, in the latest concession by a media company to the US president, who has targeted outlets over what he describes as false or misleading coverage.Paramount said it would pay $16m to settle the suit with the money allocated to Trump’s future presidential library, and not paid to Trump “directly or indirectly”.“The settlement does not include a statement of apology or regret,” the company statement added.Trump filed a $10bn lawsuit against CBS in October, alleging the network deceptively edited an interview that aired on its 60 Minutes news program with then-vice-president and presidential candidate Kamala Harris to “tip the scales in favor of the Democratic party” in the election. In an amended complaint filed in February, Trump increased his claim for damages to $20bn.CBS aired two versions of the Harris interview in which she appears to give different answers to the same question about the Israel-Hamas war, according to the lawsuit filed in a federal court in Texas.CBS previously said the lawsuit was “completely without merit” and had asked a judge to dismiss the case.The White House did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. Edward A Paltzik, a lawyer representing Trump in the civil suit, could not be immediately reached for comment.Good morning and welcome to our live coverage of US politics as Donald Trump’s sweeping tax cut and spending legislation is expected to head to the House after it cleared the Senate last night with the narrowest of margins.The Senate passed the measure in a 51-50 vote with Vice President JD Vance breaking a tie after three Republicans – Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky – joined all 47 Democrats in voting against the bill.It followed a long debate in which Republicans grappled with the so-called “one big beautiful” bill’s price tag – it is set to raise the deficit by $5 trillion – and its impact on the US healthcare system.The vote in the House, where Republicans hold a 220-212 majority, is likely to be close.Mike Johnson, the House speaker, said during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity that Republican leadership would seek to move the legislation through the Rules Committee this morning and get it before the entire House before Friday’s holiday, unless travel plans were upset by thunderstorms that have menaced the Washington area.“Hopefully we’re voting on this by tomorrow or Thursday at latest, depending on the weather delays and travel and all the rest – that’s the wild card that we can’t control,” Johnson said yesterday.A White House official told reporters that Trump would be “deeply involved” in pushing House Republicans to approve the bill. “It’s a great bill. There is something for everyone,” Trump said at an event in Florida. “And I think it’s going to go very nicely in the House.”Is Trump’s optimism misplaced? You can read our report on the bill’s progress so far and prospects for today here:Entertainingly at least, the bill has reanimated the much-missed Musk-Trump feud, with the tech billionaire calling the legislation “insane” and suggesting he could form a new political party if it passed.In response, Trump claimed he could “look into” deporting Musk. So stay with us for all the developments.In other news:

      Trump announced on his social media platform that Israel has agreed to a 60-day ceasefire in its war in Gaza and urged Hamas to accept the terms of the agreement. The news comes as Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is scheduled to visit the White House on 7 July.

      Trump toured “Alligator Alcatraz”, a controversial new migrant detention jail in the remote Florida Everglades, and celebrated the harsh conditions that people sent there would experience. Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, and Homeland Security secretary, Kristi Noem, said detainees could arrive at the rapidly constructed facility as soon as tomorrow. Trump later revisited his idea of “renovating and rebuilding Alcatraz”, with a view to reopening the infamous island prison in San Francisco, which has been closed for over 60 years.

      The Pentagon has halted shipments of air defense missiles and other precision munitions to Ukraine over concerns that US stockpiles are too low. On Sunday, Moscow fired more than 500 aerial weapons at Ukraine overnight, in a barrage that Kyiv described as the biggest air attack so far of the three-year war.

      USAID will officially stop implementing foreign aid starting today, secretary of state Marco Rubio said. He added that the US’s assistance in the future will be targeted and limited, focusing on trade rather than aid.

      The Trump administration raised the possibility of stripping Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic mayoral candidate for New York City, of his US citizenship over his vocal support for Palestinian rights. Democrat senator Chris Murphy slammed the idea as “racist bullshit”. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Paramount settles with Trump for $16m over ‘60 Minutes’ Kamala Harris interview

      by

      CBS parent company Paramount on Wednesday settled a lawsuit filed by Donald Trump over an interview broadcast in October, in the latest concession by a media company to the US president, who has targeted outlets over what he describes as false or misleading coverage.Paramount said it would pay $16m to settle the suit with the money allocated to Trump’s future presidential library, and not paid to Trump “directly or indirectly”.“The settlement does not include a statement of apology or regret,” the company statement added.Trump filed a $10bn lawsuit against CBS in October, alleging the network deceptively edited an interview that aired on its 60 Minutes news program with then-vice-president and presidential candidate Kamala Harris to “tip the scales in favor of the Democratic party” in the election. In an amended complaint filed in February, Trump increased his claim for damages to $20bn.CBS aired two versions of the Harris interview in which she appears to give different answers to the same question about the Israel-Hamas war, according to the lawsuit filed in a federal court in Texas.CBS previously said the lawsuit was “completely without merit” and had asked a judge to dismiss the case.The White House did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. Edward A Paltzik, a lawyer representing Trump in the civil suit, could not be immediately reached for comment.Paramount said it also agreed that 60 Minutes would release transcripts of interviews with future US presidential candidates after they aired, subject to redactions as required for legal or national security concerns. A spokesperson for Paramount Chair Shari Redstone was unavailable for comment.The case entered mediation in April.Trump alleged CBS’s editing of the interview violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, which makes it illegal to use false, misleading or deceptive acts in commerce.The settlement comes as Paramount prepares for an $8.4bn merger with Skydance Media, which will require approval from the US Federal Communications Commission.On the campaign trail last year, Trump threatened to revoke CBS’s broadcasting licence if elected.He has repeatedly lashed out against the news media, often casting unfavourable coverage as “fake news”.The Paramount settlement follows a decision by Walt Disney-owned ABC News to settle a defamation case brought by Trump. As part of that settlement, which was made public on 14 December, the network donated $15m to Trump’s presidential library and publicly apologised for comments by anchor George Stephanopoulos, who inaccurately said Trump had been found liable for rape.It also follows a second settlement by Facebook and Instagram parent company Meta Platforms, which on 29 January said it had agreed to pay about $25m to settle a lawsuit by Trump over the company’s suspension of his accounts after the 6 January 2021 attack at the US Capitol.Trump has vowed to pursue more claims against the media. More

    • 275 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump news at a glance: a senator quits, the ‘big beautiful bill’ loses its name – but senate still passes Trump’s megabill

      by

      After days of deliberations that went late into the night on Tuesday, the Senate passed Donald Trump’s sweeping tax and spending cuts megabill, taking the deeply divisive piece of legislation one step closer to becoming law.At the 11th hour, minority Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer won a small victory in having the name of Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” stricken, but it wasn’t enough to stop its passage – the act was passed just minutes later.The bill needs approval by the House of Representatives, which previously passed it by just one vote. If it becomes law, it would allow Trump to deliver on many of his election pledges, including making temporary tax cuts from his first term permanent, a major boost in spending on border protection and defense, and more oil and gas production. That will be partly funded by slashing spending on Medicaid and health programs, food stamps, student loans and clean energy tax credits.Here are the day’s key stories:Senate Republicans pass Trump’s sweeping policy billThe passage of Donald Trump’s major tax and spending bill is a victory for Senate Republicans, who faced infighting and deep divisions over measures like Medicaid cuts and even saw one lawmaker choose to retire after clashing with Trump.It remains unclear if changes made by the Senate will be accepted by the House. While Republicans control both house of Congress, factionalism in the lower chamber is particularly intense.Read the full storyTrump visits ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ in FloridaTrump on Tuesday toured “Alligator Alcatraz”, a controversial new migrant detention jail in the remote Florida Everglades, and celebrated the harsh conditions that people sent there would experience.The president was chaperoned by Florida’s hard-right governor, Ron DeSantis, who hailed the tented camp on mosquito-infested land 50 miles west of Miami as an example for other states that supported Trump’s mass deportation agenda.Read the full storyTrump team threatens to prosecute CNNTrump and administration officials have threatened CNN over what they said was its promotion of a new app that allows users to track and try to avoid Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.Read the full storyTrump claims Israel ready for Gaza peace dealDonald Trump claimed that Israel was ready to agree to a peace deal with Hamas as he seeks to broker a ceasefire to the war in Gaza that has claimed almost 60,000 lives.In a post on Truth Social, the US president wrote: “Israel has agreed to the necessary conditions to finalize the 60 Day CEASEFIRE, during which time we will work with all parties to end the War.”Read the full storyLeavitt raises stripping Zohran Mamdani of citizenship The Trump administration raised the possibility of stripping Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic mayoral candidate for New York City, of his US citizenship as part of a crackdown against foreign-born citizens convicted of certain offences.Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, appeared to pave the way for an investigation into Mamdani’s status after Andy Ogles, a rightwing Republican representative for Tennessee, called for his citizenship to be revoked on the grounds that he may have concealed his support for “terrorism” during the naturalization process.Read the full storyKey climate change reports removed from US government websitesLegally mandated US national climate assessments seem to have disappeared from the federal websites built to display them, making it harder for state and local governments and the public to learn what to expect in their back yards from a warming world.Scientists said the peer-reviewed authoritative reports save money and lives. Websites for the national assessments and the US Global Change Research Program were down Monday and Tuesday with no links, notes or referrals elsewhere. The White House, which was responsible for the assessments, said the information will be housed within Nasa to comply with the law, but gave no further details.Read the full storyWhat else happened today:

      The US is halting some shipments of weapons to Ukraine amid concerns that its own stockpiles have declined too much, officials said Tuesday, a setback for the country as it tries to fend off escalating attacks from Russia.

      The chair of the Federal Reserve blamed Trump’s tariffs for preventing the immediate interest rate cuts the president has demanded.

      Months after Trump expressed negative opinions about a portrait of him in the Colorado state capitol, a White House-approved replacement now hangs in its place.

      A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration’s bid to end temporary deportation protections and work permits for approximately 521,000 Haitians before the program’s scheduled expiration date.

      Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s reignited feud continued on Tuesday with the former political allies trading sharp public threats of retribution.
      Catching up? Here’s what happened on 30 June 2025. More