Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Youth Climate Activists Sue Trump Administration Over Executive Orders

      by

      The complaint argues that orders aimed at increasing American fossil fuel production infringe on the rights of young people to a healthy environment.Young people who sued state governments over climate change have begun a legal challenge aimed at President Trump’s spate of executive orders on climate and the environment.The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court in Montana, argues that three of the executive orders are unconstitutional and would cripple the clean energy industry, suppress climate science and worsen global warming.The 22 plaintiffs, ranging in age from seven to 25 years old, are mostly from Montana, as well as Hawaii, Oregon, and other states, and are represented by the nonprofit legal group Our Children’s Trust. That group has notched two important legal victories in recent years, winning cases against the state of Montana and the Hawaii Department of Transportation.“Trump’s fossil fuel orders are a death sentence for my generation,” said Eva Lighthiser, 19, the named plaintiff. “I’m not suing because I want to. I’m suing because I have to. My health, my future, and my right to speak the truth are all on the line.”The plaintiffs argue that they are already experiencing harms from a warming planet in the form of wildfires, drought and hurricanes, and that Mr. Trump’s executive orders will make conditions even worse. They say the executive orders violate their Fifth Amendment rights to life and liberty by infringing on their health, safety and prospects for the future.Further, they argue that the orders constitute executive overreach, because the president cannot unilaterally override federal laws like the Clean Air Act.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Officials Give Harvard 30 Days to Rebut Foreign Student Ban

      by

      The announcement of the delay came in a legal filing on Thursday as the two sides faced off in a Boston courtroom.The Trump administration has given Harvard 30 days to respond with evidence showing why the administration should not make good on its threat to bar it from enrolling international students, according to a notice that was filed in federal court ahead of a hearing on Thursday.A judge had already temporarily stopped the federal government from cutting off international students from Harvard, and the sides were taking part in a hearing on Thursday morning in an Boston courtroom after Harvard asked for an extension.The administration’s filing appears to be a legal maneuver to delay, if not change, the ultimate outcome in the case. Any halt to the admission of international students threatens to rock Harvard, where international students make up about a quarter of the student body.The filing appeared to address a procedural claim that the administration had not followed the proper method of notification when it abruptly announced it would bar Harvard from a program that allows it to admit international students, said David Super, an administrative law expert at Georgetown University. “An obvious violation like this procedural one is going to be a simple way for the court to rule against the government, and the government wanted to remove that,” he said.But the 30-day delay does little to address the core questions in the case, on which the judge may ultimately have to rule.The Trump administration has sought extensive documentation from Harvard, requesting, among other things, coursework for every international student and information on any student visa holder involved in misconduct or illegal activity.Citing Harvard’s failure to fully comply, the administration moved last week to revoke its ability to host international students. It also has accused Harvard of fostering a culture of antisemitism, among other allegations.It is now giving Harvard 30 calendar days to provide written documentation and other evidence “to rebut the alleged grounds for withdrawal.”International students are core to Harvard’s efforts to attract global talent, and they make up an especially high share of the university’s graduate programs. At the Kennedy School of Government, more than half of students are international. At the Chan School of Public Health, about 40 percent of students are international students. More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      United Airlines Will Return to J.F.K. Through a Deal With JetBlue

      by

      The partnership comes after Newark’s airport, where United has a big hub, suffered long delays because of air traffic control problems.United Airlines and JetBlue Airways said on Thursday that they would swap a handful of flights at two New York airports, providing United a long-sought return to Kennedy International Airport. The airlines will also sell tickets on each other’s flights and link their loyalty programs.Under a new partnership called Blue Sky, the airlines would swap seven flights at J.F.K. and Newark Liberty International Airport, giving United another option in the New York area. That is important because Newark, one of United’s biggest hubs, has been strained for years under the weight of rising congestion and air traffic control staffing shortfalls. The trade would begin as soon as 2027, the airlines said. Other elements of the deal could begin as soon as this fall, pending a regulatory review.Customers will also be able to earn and use United’s MileagePlus loyalty points on most JetBlue flights. JetBlue customers will be able to earn and use the airline’s TrueBlue points for flights on United’s network.The airlines will also provide reciprocal benefits — such as early boarding, free checked bags and seats with extra legroom — to members of both loyalty programs and sell flights operated by the other carrier. Unlike some partnerships, in which such flights are offered under the name of the airline selling the tickets, these flights will continue to be branded independently.Airlines have long used such partnerships to gain access to more customers and limited number of gates and takeoff and landing rights at busy airports. Consumer groups have often criticized such deals, arguing that they lead to higher fares and fewer choices for travelers because airlines are unlikely to compete aggressively with a partner.United and JetBlue executives said that customers would benefit from the wider range of flights provided under their agreement.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Court Tariffs Ruling Upends Trump’s Trade Strategy

      by

      The administration immediately petitioned a court to allow the United States to continue imposing stiff tariffs.One day after a federal court declared many of his tariffs to be illegal, President Trump and his top aides on Thursday rushed to resuscitate the centerpiece of the administration’s trade agenda, seeking to restore their ability to use the threat of eye-watering import taxes to force other nations into submission.Shortly after the ruling, the administration petitioned a court to allow it to continue imposing its tariffs, reflecting a persistent fear throughout the White House that a defeat could severely undercut its capacity to wage a global trade war.Since taking office, Mr. Trump had relied on a federal emergency powers law as a form of political leverage, hoping to use sky-high duties — or just the mere threat of them — to force other governments to make trade concessions to the United States.But the little-known and highly specialized U.S. Court of International Trade dealt an early yet significant blow to that strategy late Wednesday. The bipartisan panel of judges, one of whom had been appointed by Mr. Trump, ruled that the law did not grant the president “unbounded authority” to impose tariffs on nearly every country, as Mr. Trump had sought.The Trump administration quickly petitioned the court to pause any enforcement of its order as it pursues an appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. If judges ultimately grant the requested stay, Mr. Trump could, for now, maintain many of the tariffs he has imposed on China, Canada and Mexico and preserve the threat of “reciprocal” rates, which he announced on most nations and then suspended in early April.“I’m sure, when we appeal, this decision will be overturned,” Kevin Hassett, the director of the White House National Economic Council, said in an appearance Thursday on Fox Business.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Will ‘Aggressively’ Revoke Visas of Chinese Students, Rubio Says

      by

      Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the students who will have their visas canceled include people with ties to the Chinese Communist Party and those studying in “critical fields.”Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on Wednesday evening that the Trump administration would work to “aggressively revoke” visas of Chinese students, including those with ties to the Chinese Communist Party or who are studying in “critical fields.”He added that the State Department was revising visa criteria to “enhance scrutiny” of all future applications from China, including Hong Kong.The move was certain to send ripples of anxiety across university campuses in the United States and was likely to lead to reprisal from China, the country of origin for the second-largest group of international students in the United States.Mr. Rubio’s brief statement announcing the visa crackdown did not define “critical fields” of study, but the phrase most likely refers to research in the physical sciences. In recent years, American officials have expressed concerns about the Chinese government recruiting U.S.-trained scientists, though there is no evidence of such scientists working for China in large numbers.Similarly, it is unclear how U.S. officials will determine which students have ties to the Communist Party. The lack of detail on the scope of the directive will no doubt fuel worries among the roughly 275,000 Chinese students in the United States, as well as professors and university administrators who depend on their research skills and financial support.American universities and research laboratories have benefited over many decades by drawing some of the most talented students from China and other countries, and many universities rely on international students paying full tuition for a substantial part of their annual revenue.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      F.B.I. Memo on Sheds Light on Dispute Over Venezuelan Gang

      by

      The remaining intelligence agencies disagree with the F.B.I.’s analysis tying the gang, Tren de Aragua, to Venezuela’s government.An F.B.I. intelligence memo unsealed on Wednesday offers new details on why the bureau concluded that some Venezuelan government officials were likely to have had some responsibility for a criminal gang’s actions in the United States, pitting it against other intelligence agencies in a heated dispute over President Trump’s use of a wartime law.The memo, whose conclusions the remaining intelligence agencies have rejected, was submitted by the administration to a federal judge in Texas before a hearing on Thursday. It is part of a proliferating array of lawsuits over Mr. Trump’s use of the law, the Alien Enemies Act, to deport people accused of being members of that gang, Tren de Aragua, to a notorious Salvadoran prison without due process.“The F.B.I. assesses some Venezuelan government officials likely facilitate the migration of TdA members from Venezuela to the United States to advance the Maduro regime’s objective of undermining public safety in the United States,” the memo said, using an abbreviation for the gang.It added that the bureau also thinks some officials in the administration of Venezeula’s president, Nicolas Maduro, “likely use TdA members as proxies.”The submission of the memo opens the door to greater judicial scrutiny of a key basis for Mr. Trump’s assertion that he can invoke the rarely used law to summarily deport people accused of being members of the gang. It also offers a glimpse of the claims put forth by several detained migrants that formed the basis for the F.B.I.’s assessment.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Blocks Shutdown of Biden-Era Migrant Entry Programs

      by

      The sweeping order applied to hundreds of thousands of people legally in the country through programs put in place for Ukrainians, Afghans and others.A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from pulling legal protections from hundreds of thousands of people who entered the United States through Biden-era programs, ordering the government to restart processing applications for migrants who are renewing their status.In a sweeping order that extended to Ukrainians and Afghans, as well as military members and their relatives, the judge, Indira Talwani of Federal District Court in Massachusetts, wrote that the Trump administration’s categorical termination of legal pathways for those groups was probably unlawful and had the potential to sow discord across the country.The decision is a major victory for civil and immigrant rights groups that had sued to stop the administration amid a wider campaign by President Trump to strip legal status from a variety of groups living, working and studying in the country on a temporary basis.Judge Talwani wrote that the overarching campaign to strip the protections from those who had already been granted them represented a major escalation by the Trump administration that would cause chaos once the programs were wound down.In April, she had issued a similar order that applied more narrowly to hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans with temporary legal status through another program. The government is seeking a reversal of that decision before the Supreme Court.“This court emphasizes, as it did in its prior order, that it is not in the public interest to manufacture a circumstance in which hundreds of thousands of individuals will, over the course of several months, become unlawfully present in the country, such that these individuals cannot legally work in their communities or provide for themselves and their families,” Judge Talwani wrote. “Nor is it in the public interest for individuals who enlisted and are currently serving in the United States military to face family separation, particularly where some of these individuals joined the military in part to help their loved ones obtain lawful status.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Elon Musk, Distanced From Trump, Says He’s Exiting Washington and DOGE

      by

      Elon Musk took a swipe at President Trump’s signature domestic policy legislation, saying it would add to the national deficit. He complained to administration officials about a lucrative deal that went to a rival company to build an artificial-intelligence data center in the Middle East. And he has yet to make good on a $100 million pledge to Trump’s political operation.Mr. Musk, who once called himself the president’s “first buddy,” is now operating with some distance from Mr. Trump as he says he is ending his government work to spend more time on his companies. Mr. Musk remains on good terms with Mr. Trump, according to White House officials. But he has also made it clear that he is disillusioned with Washington and frustrated with the obstacles he encountered as he upended the federal bureaucracy, raising questions about the strength of the alliance between the president and the world’s richest man.Mr. Musk was the biggest known political spender in the 2024 election, and he told Mr. Trump’s advisers this year that he would give $100 million to groups controlled by the president’s team before the 2026 midterms. As of this week, the money hasn’t come in yet, according to multiple people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the behind-the-scenes dynamic.Mr. Musk did not respond to a request for comment. In a post on X, his social media site, on Wednesday night, he officially confirmed for the first time that his stint as a government employee was coming to an end and thanked Mr. Trump “for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending.”“The @DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government,” he added, referring to his Department of Government Efficiency team.The billionaire’s imprint is still firmly felt in official Washington through that effort, an initiative to drastically cut spending that has deployed staff across the government. But Mr. Musk has said in recent days that he spent too much time focused on politics and has lamented the reputational damage he and his companies have suffered because of his work in the Trump administration.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More