Trump administration

Subterms

    More stories

    • 213 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      The anti-Trump camp was in disarray. How has No Kings managed to unite it? | Emma Brockes

      by

      Two months ago, around the US, mass demonstrations against Donald Trump were organised in what felt like the beginning of the great unfreezing of the popular movement. Since the inauguration in January there have been plenty of ad-hoc anti-Trump protests, but compared to the huge numbers that turned out in 2017 – half a million at the Women’s March in Washington DC alone – the response has been muted. What was the point? The threat was so large, and the failure of the first movement apparently so great, that Americans have been suffering from what appeared to be a case of embarrassed paralysis: a sense, at once sheepish and depressed, that pink hats weren’t moving the needle on this one.It looks as if that thinking has changed. On Saturday, in a follow-up to the protests in April, more than 2,000 coordinated marches took place in the US, organised by multiple groups under the umbrella No Kings Day and attended by numbers that at a glance seem startling. While in the capital on Saturday, Trump oversaw his weird, sparsely attended Kim Jong-un style military parade, an estimated 5 million people country-wide took to the streets to protest peacefully against him, including an estimated 80,000 in Philadelphia, 75,000 in Chicago, 50,000 in New York, 20,000 in Phoenix, and 7,000 in Honolulu. More heartening still were the numbers from deep red states, such as the 2,000 odd protesters who gathered in Mobile, Alabama, and a reported 4,000 in Louisville, Kentucky.These protests were different in nature to their earlier incarnations, according to the accounts of some of those in attendance. I was in New York last month and friends who’d been at the march in April recounted, with amusement and despair, how few young people had shown up. In addition, said a friend, an elderly demonstrator marching close to them had shushed the crowd and put her fingers in her ears, and another set of women had started dancing, obliviously, to the music being played by pro-Trump counter-protesters on the sidelines. All successful protests require participants to forgive each other their differences, but we shook with laughter as he told us how hopeless and uninspiring – “it’s a protest sweetie, what did you expect?” – he’d found some of his fellow marchers.It was a different story on Saturday. The crowds were bigger – by some estimates, the largest country-wide demonstrations ever recorded – younger, more energised and more focused. There was, I gather, a sense of urgency unleashed by the feeling not only that these protests were long overdue but that, after Trump’s deployment of the national guard in LA, some critical line had been crossed. Meanwhile, as a unifying slogan, the No Kings thing really seems to be working. When I first heard the phrase I thought it was limp – my forelock-tugging Pavlovian response to the word “king” and any reference to monarchy, I guess.I forgot: Americans presented with the same word go to George III not Charles III, and the signs on Saturday took up No Kings with real relish. This is a significant victory, given how hard it is to unite diverse constituencies under a single, snappy umbrella. There were a lot of very funny signs on the marches (some standouts: “Only he could ruin tacos”; “If Kamala were president we’d be at brunch” and my favourite, “Trump cheats at golf”.) But overarching them all was a slogan that in the most efficient way possible presented multiple groups with a non-partisan way to come out against Trump.So far, No Kings has also avoided some of the mistakes of the Women’s March, in which the celebrity of the organisers came to overshadow and poison the movement. The No Kings motif was coined earlier this year by the progressive group 50501 – the name is a reference to 50 protests, 50 states, one movement – and was created before the 17 February demonstrations as an alternative to the hashtag #NotMyPresidentsDay, which it was felt, shrewdly, struck the wrong tone. Instead, the group launched the phrase “No Kings on Presidents Day,” which by this month had compacted down into No Kings Day. As yet, 50501, which grew out of a Reddit post, has no identifiable leaders.This makes it a much harder target for Trump’s “black propagandists” to divide protesters via their political differences. Instead, No Kings seems to be offering a very broad on-ramp to protesters by way of a story that is simple and true: that opposition to Trump’s autocratic style is an act of patriotism with its roots in the country’s very foundations.

      Emma Brockes is a Guardian columnist More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump news at a glance: president equivocates on Iran as US split over intervention

      by

      The possibility of US intervention in the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran is exposing sharp divisions in president Donald Trump’s base, with some of his supporters urging the president against involvement in a new Middle East war.Trump says he remains undecided about the US getting directly involved, which if sanctioned would be a sharp departure from his usual caution about foreign entanglements.Speaking to reporters at the White House on Wednesday the president said that some of his supporters “are a little bit unhappy now” but that others agree with him that Iran cannot become a nuclear power.Here are the key stories at a glance:Trump undecided on joining war on IranDonald Trump said he had not decided whether or not to take his country into Israel’s new war, as Iran’s supreme leader said the US would face “irreparable damage” if it deployed its military to attack.Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Israel had made a “huge mistake” by launching the war, in his first comments since Friday. “The Americans should know that any US military intervention will undoubtedly be accompanied by irreparable damage,” he said in a statement read out by a presenter on state TV.Read the full storyPete Hegseth suggests he would disobey court ruling against deploying military in LAThe US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, suggested on Wednesday that he would not obey a federal court ruling against the deployments of national guard troops and US marines to Los Angeles, the latest example of the Trump administration’s willingness to ignore judges it disagrees with.Read the full storyUS supreme court upholds state ban on youth gender-affirming careA Tennessee state law banning gender-affirming care for minors can stand, the US supreme court has ruled, a devastating loss for trans rights supporters in a case that could set a precedent for dozens of other lawsuits involving the rights of transgender children.Read the full storyNew US visa rules will force foreign students to unlock social media profileForeign students will be required to unlock their social media profiles to allow US diplomats to review their online activity before receiving educational and exchange visas, the state department has announced. Those who fail to do so will be suspected of hiding that activity from US officials.Read the full storyCarlson v Cruz: Iran’s Maga rift erupts into public viewTed Cruz, the US senator from Texas, and conservative media personality Tucker Carlson have clashed over US military involvement in the Middle East, with the latter shouting: “You don’t know anything about Iran!” in a heated interview that exposes a sharp division within Donald Trump’s coalition as the president considers joining Israel in attacking Iran.Read the full storyNippon Steel acquires US Steel for $14.9bnNippon Steel’s $14.9bn acquisition of US Steel closed on Wednesday, the companies said, confirming an unusual degree of power for the Trump administration after the Japanese company’s 18-month struggle to close the purchase.Read the full storyWhat else happened today:

      Senate Democrats staged a near-total boycott of a Republican-led Senate hearing on Joe Biden’s mental decline and its alleged cover-up during his presidency.

      Women across the political spectrum are more concerned than men about the US economy and inflation under Trump, according to an exclusive poll for the Guardian.

      A federal judge held Florida’s attorney general in contempt of court for enforcing an immigration law she blocked and bragging about it in media interviews afterwards.
      Catching up? Here’s what happened on 17 June 2025. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      New US visa rules will force foreign students to unlock social media profiles

      by

      Foreign students will be required to unlock their social media profiles to allow US diplomats to review their online activity before receiving educational and exchange visas, the state department has announced. Those who fail to do so will be suspected of hiding that activity from US officials.The new guidance, unveiled by the state department on Wednesday, directs US diplomats to conduct an online presence review to look for “any indications of hostility toward the citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles of the United States”.A cable separately obtained by Politico also instructs diplomats to flag any “advocacy for, aid or support for foreign terrorists and other threats to US national security” and “support for unlawful antisemitic harassment or violence”.The screening for “antisemitic” activity matches similar guidance given at US Citizenship and Immigration Services under the Department of Homeland Security and has been criticised as an effort to crack down on opposition to the conduct of Israel’s war in Gaza.The new state department checks are directed at students and other applicants for visas in the F, M and J categories, which refer to academic and vocational education, as well as cultural exchanges.“It is an expectation from American citizens that their government will make every effort to make our country safer, and that is exactly what the Trump administration is doing every single day,” said a senior state department official, adding that Marco Rubio was “helping to make America and its universities safer while bringing the state Department into the 21st century”.The Trump administration paused the issuance of new education visas late last month as it mulled new social media vetting strategies. The US had also targeted Chinese students for special scrutiny amid a tense negotiation over tariffs and the supply of rare-earth metals and minerals to the United States.The state department directive allowed diplomatic posts to resume the scheduling of interviews for educational and exchange visas, but added that consular officers would conduct a “comprehensive and thorough vetting” of all applicants applying for F, M and J visas.“To facilitate this vetting, all applicants for F, M and J non-immigrant visas will be asked to adjust the privacy settings on all their social media profiles to ‘public’”, the official said. “The enhanced social media vetting will ensure we are properly screening every single person attempting to visit our country.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Pete Hegseth suggests he would disobey court ruling against deploying military in LA

      by

      The US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, suggested on Wednesday that he would not obey a federal court ruling against the deployments of national guard troops and US marines to Los Angeles, the latest example of the Trump administration’s willingness to ignore judges it disagrees with.The comments before the Senate armed services committee come as Donald Trump faces dozen of lawsuits over his policies, which his administration has responded to by avoiding compliance with orders it dislikes. In response, Democrats have claimed that Trump is sending the country into a constitutional crisis.California has sued over Trump’s deployment of national guard troops to Los Angeles, and, last week, a federal judge ruled that control of soldiers should return to California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom. An appeals court stayed that ruling and, in arguments on Tuesday, sounded ready to keep the soldiers under Donald Trump’s authority.“I don’t believe district courts should be determining national security policy. When it goes to the supreme court, we’ll see,” Hegseth told the Democratic senator Mazie Hirono. Facing similar questions from another Democrat, Elizabeth Warren, he said: “If the supreme court rules on a topic, we will abide by that.”Hegseth was confirmed to lead the Pentagon after three Republican senators and all Democrats voted against his appointment, creating a tie vote on a cabinet nomination for only the second time in history. The tie was broken by the vice-president, JD Vance.There were few hints of dissatisfaction among GOP senators at the hearing, which was intended to focus on the Pentagon’s budgetary needs for the forthcoming fiscal year, but Democrats used it to press for more details on the deployment of troops to Los Angeles, as well as the turmoil that has plagued Hegseth’s top aides and the potential for the United States to join Israel’s attack on Iran.The Democratic senator Elissa Slotkin asked whether troops deployed to southern California were allowed to arrest protesters or shoot them in the legs, as Trump is said to have attempted to order during his first term.“If necessary, in their own self-defense, they could temporarily detain and hand over to [Immigration and Customs Enforcement]. But there’s no arresting going on,” Hegseth said. On Friday, marines temporarily took into custody a US citizen at a federal building in Los Angeles.The secretary laughed when asked whether troops could shoot protesters, before telling Slotkin: “Senator, I’d be careful what you read in books and believing in, except for the Bible.”An exasperated Slotkin replied: “Oh my God.”Trump has publicly mulled the possibility that the United States might strike Iran. Slotkin asked if the Pentagon had plans for what the US military would do after toppling its government.“We have plans for everything,” Hegseth said, prompting the committee’s Republican chair, Roger Wicker, to note that the secretary was scheduled to answer further questions in a behind-closed-doors session later that afternoon.In addition to an aggressive purge of diversity and equity policies from the military, Hegseth has also ordered that military bases that were renamed under Joe Biden because they honored figures in the Confederacy to revert to their previous names – but officially honoring various US soldiers with the same name.The Virginia senator Tim Kaine said that in his state, several bases had been renamed under Biden in honor of accomplished veterans, and their families were never officially told that the names would be changed back.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“You didn’t call any of the families, and I’ve spoken with the families, and the families were called by the press. That’s how they learned about this. They learned about it from the press,” Kaine said,He asked Hegseth to pause the renaming of these bases, which the secretary declined to do, instead saying: “We’ll find ways to recognize them.”Democrats also criticized Hegseth for turmoil in the ranks of his top aides, as well as his decision to name as the Pentagon’s press secretary Kingsley Wilson, who has repeatedly shared on social media an antisemitic conspiracy theory.The Pentagon head had a sharp exchange with the Democratic senator Jacky Rosen, who asked whether he would fire Wilson. “I’ve worked directly with her. She does a fantastic job, and … any suggestion that I or her or others are party to antisemitism is a mischaracterization.”“You are not a serious person,” the Nevada lawmaker replied. “You are not serious about rooting out, fighting antisemitism within the ranks of our DOD. It’s despicable. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.”Rosen then asked if the far-right activist Laura Loomer was involved in the firing of a top national security staffer. Hegseth demurred, saying the decision was his to make, but the senator continued to press, even as the committee chair brought down his gavel to signal that she had run out of time for questions.“I believe your time is up, senator,” Hegseth said. A furious Rosen responded: “It is not up to you to tell me when my time is up. And I am going to say, Mr Secretary, you’re either feckless or complicit. You’re not in control of your department.” More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      VA hospitals remove politics and marital status from guidelines protecting patients from discrimination

      by

      The Department of Veterans Affairs has imposed new guidelines on VA hospitals nationwide that remove language that explicitly prohibited doctors from discriminating against patients based on their political beliefs or marital status.The new rules, obtained by the Guardian, also apply to psychologists, dentists and a host of other occupations. They have already gone into effect in at least some VA medical centers.Under federal law, eligible veterans must be given hospital care and services, and the revised VA hospital rules still instruct medical staff that they cannot discriminate against veterans on the basis of race, color, religion and sex. But language within VA hospital bylaws requiring healthcare professionals to care for veterans regardless of their politics and marital status has been explicitly eliminated from these bylaws, raising questions about whether individual workers could now be free to decline to care for patients based on personal characteristics not expressly protected by federal law.Explicit protections for VA doctors and other medical staff based on their marital status, political party affiliation or union activity have also been removed, documents reviewed by the Guardian show.The changes also affect chiropractors, certified nurse practitioners, optometrists, podiatrists, licensed clinical social workers and speech therapists.In making the changes, VA officials cite Donald Trump’s 30 January executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”. The primary purpose of the executive order was to strip most government protections from transgender people. The VA has since ceased providing most gender-affirming care and forbidden a long list of words, including “gender affirming” and “transgender”, from clinical settings.The Department of Veterans Affairs is the nation’s largest integrated hospital system, with more than 170 hospitals and more than 1,000 clinics. It employs 26,000 doctors and serves 9 million patients annually.In an emailed response to questions, the VA press secretary, Peter Kasperowicz, did not dispute that language requiring medical staff to treat patients without discriminating on the basis of politics and marital status had been removed from the bylaws , but he said “all eligible veterans will always be welcome at VA and will always receive the benefits and services they’ve earned under the law”.He said the rule changes were nothing more than “a formality”, but confirmed that they were made to comply with Trump’s executive order. Kasperowicz also said the revisions were necessary to “ensure VA policy comports with federal law”. He did not say which federal law or laws required these changes.The VA said federal laws and a 2013 policy directive that prohibits discrimination on the basis of marital status or political affiliation would not allow patients within the categories removed from its bylaws to be excluded from treatment or allow discrimination against medical professionals.“Under no circumstances whatsoever would VA ever deny appropriate care to any eligible veterans or appropriate employment to any qualified potential employees,” a VA representative said.Until the recent changes, VA hospitals’ bylaws said that medical staff could not discriminate against patients “on the basis of race, age, color, sex, religion, national origin, politics, marital status or disability in any employment matter”. Now, several of those items – including “national origin,” “politics” and “marital status” – have been removed from that list.Similarly, the bylaw on “decisions regarding medical staff membership” no longer forbids VA hospitals from discriminating against candidates for staff positions based on national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, membership in a labor organization or “lawful political party affiliation”.Medical experts said the implications of rule changes uncovered by the Guardian could be far-reaching.They “seem to open the door to discrimination on the basis of anything that is not legally protected”, said Dr Kenneth Kizer, the VA’s top healthcare official during the Clinton administration. He said the changes open up the possibility that doctors could refuse to treat veterans based on their “reason for seeking care – including allegations of rape and sexual assault – current or past political party affiliation or political activity, and personal behavior such as alcohol or marijuana use”.Dr Arthur Caplan, founding head of the division of medical ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, called the new rules “extremely disturbing and unethical”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“It seems on its face an effort to exert political control over the VA medical staff,” he said. “What we typically tell people in healthcare is: ‘You keep your politics at home and take care of your patients.’” Caplan said the rules opened the door to doctors questioning patients about whether they attended a Trump rally or declining to provide healthcare to a veteran because they wore a button critical of JD Vance or voiced support for gay rights.“Those views aren’t relevant to caring for patients. So why would we put anyone at risk of losing care that way?” Caplan said.During the 2024 presidential campaign and throughout the early months of his second term, Trump repeatedly made threats against a host of people whom he saw as his political antagonists, including senators, judges and then president Joe Biden. He called journalists and Democrats “the enemy within”.In interviews, veterans said the impact of the new policy would probably fall hardest on female veterans, LGBTQ+ veterans and those who live in rural areas where there are fewer doctors overall. “I’m lucky. I have my choice of three clinics,” said Tia Christopher, a navy veteran who reported being raped in service in 2000.Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Christopher advocates on behalf of military sexual trauma survivors throughout the country. Under the new policy, some may have to register at a hospital in another region and travel more than a hundred miles to see a doctor. It “could have a huge ripple effect”, she said.As concerned as they were about the new policies themselves, medical experts were equally worried about the way they came about. Sources at multiple VA hospitals, speaking on condition of anonymity because of fear of retaliation, told the Guardian that the rule changes were imposed without consultation with the system’s doctors – a characterization the VA’s Kasperowicz did not dispute.Such a move would run counter to standards established by the Joint Commission, a non-profit organization that accredits hospitals. Kasperowicz said the agency worked with the Joint Commission “to ensure these changes would have no impact on VA’s accreditation”.At its annual convention in Chicago this week, the American Medical Association’s 733-member policymaking body passed a resolution reaffirming “its commitment to medical staff self-governance … and urges all healthcare institutions, including the US Department of Veterans Affairs, to ensure that any amendments to medical staff bylaws are subject to approval by medical staff in accordance with Joint Commission standards”.The changes are part of a larger attack on the independence of medicine and science by the Trump administration, Caplan said, which has included restrictions and cuts at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F Kennedy Jr, last week fired every member of a key panel that advises the government on vaccines. The Guardian has earlier reported on a VA edict forbidding agency researchers from publishing in scientific journals without clearance from the agency’s political appointees. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      America is sleepwalking into another unnecessary war | Eli Clifton and Eldar Mamedov

      by

      As the United States inches closer to direct military confrontation with Iran, it is critical to recognize how avoidable this escalation has been. “We knew everything [about Israel’s plans to strike Iran], and I tried to save Iran humiliation and death,” said Donald Trump on Friday. “I tried to save them very hard because I would have loved to have seen a deal worked out.”As two of the last analysts from an American thinktank to visit Iran, just three weeks ago, we can report that Iran’s own foreign ministry and members of the nuclear negotiating team were eager to work out a deal with Steve Witkoff, the US special envoy to the Middle East, and showed no indication they were interested in slow-walking talks.Over the course of conversations held on the sidelines of the Tehran Dialogue Forum, high-level foreign ministry officials expressed concern about the potential for a spoiling effort by the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and various staff and officials showed themselves open to considering a variety of scenarios including a regional nuclear consortium for uranium enrichment under international oversight and bilateral areas of diplomatic and economic engagement with the United States.What we heard should have been cause for cautious optimism – yet instead, Washington squandered a rare diplomatic opening, seemingly allowing Israel to start a disastrous war of choice that may soon drag in the US. Contrary to the narrative that Iran was dragging its feet in negotiations, we saw no evidence of deliberate stalling. In fact, Iran’s worsening economic crisis had created a strong incentive for Tehran to strike a deal – one that would provide sanctions relief in exchange for limits on its nuclear program, with even the possibility of broader normalization with the US on the horizon. Middle-class Iranians we spoke with elsewhere in Tehran were frustrated with the economic situation and, despite a highly developed sanctions-resistant economy, eager for sanctions relief allowing them greater access to international travel and trade.Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, emphasized flexibility on nearly every issue outside Iran’s red line on low-level uranium enrichment. That was echoed in private conversations we held with foreign ministry staff and members of the nuclear negotiating team. Domestic enrichment is non-negotiable for Iran but they believed they had front-loaded their concessions to Witkoff, offering up a 3.67% limit on their enrichment with whatever monitoring and surveillance mechanisms were necessary for the US to feel confident the deal was being honored.Enrichment, even at a low level, is a matter of national pride, a symbol of scientific achievement and a defiant response to decades of sanctions, the red line consistently stated in our conversations and one which they thought was agreeable to Witkoff. Iran claimed to be completely blindsided by Witkoff’s 18 May statement that zero enrichment was the only acceptable terms for a nuclear deal but was open to returning to talks to discuss ways forward. After weathering immense economic pain to develop this capability, no Iranian government – reformist or hardline – could feasibly surrender to the zero enrichment demand. The idea that Tehran would dismantle its enrichment program in 60 days, as the Trump administration demanded, was never realistic.This was not mere stubbornness – it was rooted in deep mistrust sown by Trump. The US had already violated the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) by unilaterally withdrawing during Trump’s first term, despite Iran’s verified compliance. Why would Tehran now accept another agreement requiring total denuclearization, with no guarantee Washington wouldn’t renege again?Iranian officials signaled openness to creative solutions, including shipping excess low-enriched uranium to Russia; forming a regional consortium for enrichment; allowing US inspectors to join International Atomic Energy Agency teams – a major shift from previous positions. Other ideas were also floated at the Tehran forum, albeit not from official sources – temporary suspension of enrichment and a pause on advanced IR-6 centrifuges as confidence-building measures. Araghchi’s expressed willingness to return to JCPOA-permitted enrichment levels (below 4%) – was a concession so significant that it drew criticism from Iranian hardliners for giving too much, too soon. This was not the behavior of a regime trying to stall; it was the posture of a government eager for a deal, engaged in an effort to avoid spoilers in Jerusalem, Washington and at home in Tehran, and knowing full well that long, drawn-out negotiations would offer more, not fewer, opportunities for enemies of diplomacy to strike.The US team, led by Witkoff and mediated by Oman, seemed to share this urgency. The Iranian government seemed empowered enough to make a deal – if the US had been willing to take yes for an answer. Yet here we are, on the brink of another Middle East conflict – one that was entirely preventable. Instead of seizing this rare moment of Iranian flexibility, the US chose escalation. The consequences may be catastrophic: a wider regional war, soaring oil prices and the total collapse of diplomacy with Iran for years to come.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIt is still possible to step back from the brink. Tehran has signaled willingness to re-engage in talks if Israeli ceases attack. Omani channels remain open. Yet, after the start of the Israeli bombing campaign, the political space for negotiations has shrunk.The US is sleepwalking into another Middle East quagmire, an open-ended war with unclear goals, loose talk of regime change and the potential for a regional conflagration if Iran attacks US military installations in the Persian Gulf. And this war comes after Iran extended a real offer for compromise. If Washington chooses bombs over diplomacy, history will record this as a war not of necessity, but of tragic, reckless choice.

      Eli Clifton is senior adviser at Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft

      Eldar Mamedov is non-resident fellow at Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and member of the Pugwash Council on Science and World Affairs More

    • 188 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump promised riches from ‘liquid gold’ in the US. Now fossil fuel donors are benefiting

      by

      Kelcy Warren was among the top donors for Donald Trump’s 2024 White House bid, personally pouring at least $5m into the campaign and co-hosting a fundraiser for the then presidential hopeful in Houston.Trump’s win appears to already be benefiting Warren and Energy Transfer Partners, the pipeline and energy firm of which he is co-founder, executive chair and primary shareholder.“We will be a rich nation again, and it is that liquid gold under our feet that will help to do it,” Trump said in his inaugural address.Though domestic fossil fuel production reached record levels under Joe Biden, his policies to boost renewable energy still sparked fear among oil and gas companies, said Mark Jones, a political scientist at Rice University in Houston, Texas. “There was a threat of moving toward a net zero world … maybe not now, but there was an idea that would happen if Democrats stayed in the White House,” said Jones.For Warren and other oil billionaires, Trump removed that fear, Jones said.Energy Transfer Partners reported a year-over-year increase in profits in the first quarter of this year. In an earnings call last month, company top brass praised the new administration and more supportive regulatory environment.Among Trump’s moves that have benefited the company: a day-one move to end Biden’s pause on liquefied natural gas exports, which enables Energy Transfer to proceed with a long-sought-after LNG project in Lake Charles. On 13 May, Trump’s Federal Energy Commission (Ferc) also granted a three-year extension for the LNG project, which the company said was necessary for the project to succeed.In the week after the Ferc decision, Warren’s wealth rose by nearly 10%, noted Sarah Cohen, who directs the climate and wealth inequality-focused non-profit Climate Accountability Research Project (Carp).“That decision wouldn’t have been possible under Biden’s LNG pause,” said Cohen, who calculated the change using the Bloomberg billionaires index.Since that Ferc decision, Energy Transfer Partners has also secured a 20-year deal to supply a Japanese company with up to 1m metric tons of LNG a year.Other Trump orders to “unleash American energy” and declare an energy emergency to promote fossil fuels despite already booming production, for instance, are set to benefit Energy Transfer Partners by making it easier to expand the use all kinds of fossil fuels, thereby boosting the demand for pipelines.Also fueling that demand: the projected boom in datacenters. Energy Transfer Partners has received requests to power 70 new ones, the Guardian reported in April, marking a 75% rise since Trump took office.View image in fullscreenBy appointing fossil fuel-friendly officials to top positions, such as the former energy CEO Chris Wright to head the energy department and the pro-oil and -gas Doug Burgum to the interior department, Trump has also “showed his allegiance to companies like Energy Transfer Partners”, said Cohen.“They’re really creating this environment that’s great for oil and gas,” she said. “The message is ‘We’ll give you what you want.’”Energy Transfer did not respond to requests from the Guardian to comment.Ties to TrumpWarren ranks among the richest 500 people in the world, with Forbes placing his net worth at $7.2bn. He has long deployed his wealth to support the GOP, including by becoming the 13th-largest corporate funder to Trump’s Make America Great Again Super Pac last year with a $5m donation.He has also spent his fortune in more eccentric ways. His $30m, 23,000 sq ft Dallas mansion includes a movie theater and bowling alley, and among his other assets are a 8,000-acre ranch near Cherokee, Texas, which is home to zebras, javelinas and giraffes; a 20,000-acre golf resort in Lajitas, Texas; a private island near Roatán, Honduras; and numerous private aircraft, including a Dassault Falcon 900 jet.A lover of folk music, Warren also started a record label in 2007 alongside the singer-songwriter Jimmy LaFave, with whom he has also written songs. “If you hear me now,” goes one song for which Warren penned the lyrics, “maybe you could pull some strings.”The pipeline mogul accumulated most of his wealth from Energy Transfer Partners, which owns and operates about 130,000 miles of energy infrastructure in the US. In recent months, the firm has been criticized by advocates for its successful lawsuit against the environmental non-profit Greenpeace, which in March yielded a verdict that threatens to bankrupt the organization.Warren has long enjoyed a relationship with the president, donating generously to his first campaign and attending closed-door meetings during his first term. Though Warren is not known to have attended the infamous May 2024 meeting during which Trump asked oil bosses for $1bn and pledged to overturn environmental rules, he did co-host a fundraiser for the president in Houston weeks later.He is one of a handful of the most powerful oil billionaires from Texas, where there are no limits on contributions to candidates and political committees.“Texas has always been kind of a testing ground for the most extreme politics and issues that the Republicans pursue,” said Matt Angle, founder of the Lone Star Project, a Democratic Pac in the state. “In Texas, people like him are used to being able to donate to get their way.”Unlike some other Texas energy barons, such as the Christian nationalist Tim Dunn, Warren is not driven by dogma, said Jones.“Kelcy Warren is not necessarily ideological,” he said. “He may be in sync with Trump on some other issues, but his support for Donald Trump is largely because of what Trump proposed to do [for] the energy sector.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionOne big, beautiful billThe reconciliation bill, which the House passed last month and the Senate is now debating, is also expected to be a boon to Energy Transfer Partners and Warren. Known as the “one big beautiful bill”, it is expected to slash Biden-era incentives for renewable energy, tamping down competition in the energy market.A number of more esoteric provisions in the bill will also prove beneficial for the company, according to a review by Carp shared with the Guardian. One provision in the House-approved version, for instance, would allow the Department of Energy to determine that a proposed LNG export facility is in the “public interest” if the applicant pays $1m – something Energy Transfer Partners could afford to do. It’s a “pay to play” scenario, said Carp co-founder Chuck Collins.View image in fullscreenOther provisions would expedite the build-out of LNG export infrastructure, force the government to hold lease sales for fossil fuels even when demand is low and reverse protections to allow drilling in some areas without any judicial review. Still others would stymy federal agencies’ ability to implement new climate rules by requiring that major changes obtain congressional approval, allow gas developers to pay a $10m fee to bypass permitting processes, limit who can bring lawsuits over gas infrastructure and allow firms to pay taxpayers less to use public land, Carp found.The bill is also set to hand fossil fuel companies huge tax breaks – including by extending tax cuts in the Trump-backed 2017 reconciliation bill, from which Energy Transfer Partners reported a tax benefit of $1.81bn.In one example, the House’s version of the bill would reinstate 100% “bonus depreciation” for qualified properties, allowing companies such as Energy Transfer Partners to completely write off new infrastructure such as pipelines on their taxes, and see the benefits immediately. It’s also expected to apply to private jets, Collins noted.Other tax breaks in the proposal are expected to personally benefit ultra-wealthy Americans such as Warren.“The most wealth I’ve ever made is during the dark times,” Warren told Bloomberg a decade ago.PipelinesUnder Trump, Energy Transfer Partners will also probably save money on pipeline safety compliance. Since the president re-entered the White House in January, enforcement from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has dropped. Across the pipeline industry, the PHMSA opened only four enforcement actions in April, and zero in March – marking the first month since the subagency’s 2004 launch when no cases were initiated, E&E News reported.“That fits right in with the philosophy or paradigm of the Trump 2.0 deregulation agenda,” said Carp’s Cohen.A lack of action from the body could lead to savings for Energy Transfer Partners, which has paid millions in fines to the PHMSA.In March, Energy Transfer Partners also sued the PHMSA, claiming that its enforcement system is “unconstitutional”. Success in the suit could mean the company is forced to pay fewer penalties.Shielded from tariffsAnother Trump policy from which Energy Transfer Partners will benefit: an exemption for oil and gas from his new tariffs. The president provided the industry wide shield after a meeting with the American Petroleum Institute lobby group, of which Warren’s company is a member.The firm’s profits may still be blunted by other tariffs, such as those on aluminum and other products needed for pipeline construction, but the energy sector expects those losses to be offset by the soon-to-be-passed reconciliation bill, Politico reported in April.“The energy companies would prefer not to have the tariffs, sure,” said Jones. “But those are not a negative that outweighs what they view as the existential threat that Democrats represent … the existential threat of net zero.” More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Appeals court likely to keep Trump in control of national guard deployed in LA

      by

      A federal appeals court on Tuesday seemed ready to keep Donald Trump in control of California national guard troops after they were deployed following protests in Los Angeles over immigration raids.Last week, a district court ordered the US president to return control of the guard to Democratic governor Gavin Newsom, who had opposed their deployment. US district judge Charles Breyer said Trump had deployed the Guard illegally and exceeded his authority. But the administration quickly appealed and a three-judge appellate panel temporarily paused that order.Tuesday’s hearing was about whether the order could take effect while the case makes its way through the courts, including possibly the supreme court.It’s the first time a US president has activated a state national guard without the governor’s permission since 1965, and the outcome of the case could have sweeping implications for Trump’s power to send soldiers into other US cities. Trump announced on 7 June that he was deploying the guard to Los Angeles to protect federal property following a protest at a downtown detention center after federal immigration agents arrested dozens of immigrants without legal status across the city. Newsom said Trump was only inflaming the situation and that troops were not necessary.In a San Francisco courtroom, all three judges, two appointed by Trump in his first term and one by Joe Biden, suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in.“If we were writing on a blank slate, I would tend to agree with you,” Judge Jennifer Sung, a Biden appointee, told California’s lawyer, Samuel Harbourt, before pointing to a 200-year-old supreme court decision that she said seemed to give presidents the broad discretion Harbourt was arguing against.Even so, the judges did not appear to embrace arguments made by a justice department lawyer that courts could not even review Trump’s decision.It wasn’t clear how quickly the panel would rule.Judge Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee, opened the hearing by asking whether the courts have a role in reviewing the president’s decision to call up the national guard. Brett Shumate, an attorney for the federal government, said they did not.“The statute says the president may call on federal service members and units of the Guard of any state in such numbers that he considers necessary,” Shumate said, adding that the statute “couldn’t be any more clear”.Shumate made several references to “mob violence” in describing ongoing protests in Los Angeles. But mayor Karen Bass lifted a curfew for downtown Los Angeles Tuesday, saying acts of vandalism and violence that prompted her curfew a week ago had subsided.“It is essential that this injunction be stayed, otherwise, lives and property will be at risk,” Shumate said.Harbourt argued that the federal government didn’t inform Newsom of the decision to deploy the guard. He said the Trump administration hasn’t shown that they considered “more modest measures to the extreme response of calling in the national guard and militarizing the situation”.Harbourt told the panel that not upholding Breyer’s ruling would “defy our constitutional traditions of preserving state sovereignty, of providing judicial review for the legality of executive action, of safeguarding our cherished rights to political protest”.Breyer’s order applied only to the national guard troops and not the marines, who were also deployed to LA but were not yet on the streets when he ruled.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionNewsom’s lawsuit accused Trump of inflaming tensions, breaching state sovereignty and wasting resources just when guard members need to be preparing for wildfire season. He also called the federal takeover of the state’s national guard “illegal and immoral”.Newsom said in advance of the hearing that he was confident in the rule of law.“I’m confident that common sense will prevail here: the US military belongs on the battlefield, not on American streets,” Newsom said in a statement.Breyer ruled the Trump violated the use of title 10, which allows the president to call the national guard into federal service when the country “is invaded”, when “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government,” or when the president is unable “to execute the laws of the United States”.Breyer, an appointee of former president Bill Clinton, said the definition of a rebellion was not met.“The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion,’” he wrote. “Individuals’ right to protest the government is one of the fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment, and just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone.”The national guard hasn’t been activated without a governor’s permission since 1965, when President Lyndon B Johnson sent troops to protect a civil rights march in Alabama, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. More