Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Israel and Hamas Make 6th Exchange, Keeping Cease-Fire Intact for Now

      by

      Days after the fragile truce appeared to be teetering, Hamas freed three Israeli hostages as Israel released 369 Palestinian prisoners. But it is far from clear whether the deal will reach a second phase.Hamas freed three more Israeli hostages on Saturday as Israel released 369 Palestinian prisoners, prolonging a fragile cease-fire in the Gaza Strip that appeared to be teetering only days ago.The hostages — Alexander Troufanov, 29, known as Sasha; Iair Horn, 46; and Sagui Dekel-Chen, 36, one of the few Americans still held in Gaza — were noticeably thinner and paler after spending 16 months in captivity. They had been abducted from the Israeli border village of Nir Oz during the Hamas-led attack on Oct. 7, 2023, that ignited the war in Gaza.But they did not appear as emaciated as the three hostages released last Saturday, whose condition prompted outrage and horror in Israel.Palestinian militants once again used the exchange, the sixth carried out under the first phase of the cease-fire, to stage a show intended to demonstrate that they still dominate Gaza, despite Israel’s devastating bombardment and ground invasion in response to the 2023 attack.Dozens of gun-toting fighters affiliated with Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad forced Mr. Troufanov, Mr. Horn and Mr. Dekel-Chen to mount a stage in the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis and to give speeches in Hebrew, with portraits of Hamas leaders on the stage behind them.The hostages being freed — Mr. Horn, 46, Mr. Dekel-Chen, 36, and Mr. Troufanov, 29 — on a stage erected by Hamas in Khan Yunis, Gaza. Saher Alghorra for The New York TimesWe 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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Suggests No Laws Are Broken if He’s ‘Saving His Country’

      by

      President Trump on Saturday posted on social media a single sentence that appears to encapsulate his attitude as he tests the nation’s legal and constitutional boundaries in the process of upending the federal government and punishing his perceived enemies.“He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” Mr. Trump wrote, first on his social media platform Truth Social, and then on the website X.By late afternoon, Mr. Trump had pinned the statement to the top of his Truth Social feed, making it clear it was not a passing thought but one he wanted people to absorb. The official White House account on X posted his message in the evening.The quote is a variation of one sometimes attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte, although its origin is unclear.Nonetheless, the sentiment was familiar: Mr. Trump, through his words and actions, has repeatedly suggested that surviving two assassination attempts is evidence that he has divine backing to enforce his will.He has brought a far more aggressive attitude toward his use of power to the White House in his second term than he did at the start of his first. The powers of the presidency that he returned to were bolstered by last year’s Supreme Court ruling that he is presumptively immune from prosecution for any crimes he may commit using his official powers.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

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      A National Park Guide Was Flying Home From a Work Trip. She Was Fired Midair.

      by

      Helen Dhue was flying home after a work trip to Ajo, Ariz., for the National Park Service on Friday, she said. But when she landed in Dallas for a layover, she found out she had been fired. She tried to log on to her work email, but her access was already cut off.Turns out, Ms. Dhue, a 23-year-old park guide at Palo Alto Battlefield National Historical Park, was one of 1,000 National Park Service employees affected by the Trump administration’s cuts to the federal work force, according to groups that represent public lands and parks workers.“The department determined that you have failed to demonstrate fitness or qualifications for continued employment because your subject matter knowledge, skills and abilities do not meet the department’s current needs,” read the email, which was sent to Ms. Dhue while she was in the air. (She later obtained a printed copy of the email from her boss.)The department did not immediately provide comments for this article on Saturday.The National Park Service firings came as the Trump administration escalated its efforts to cull the federal work force. Workers were also fired at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Agriculture Department and the Energy Department, among other agencies, on Friday.Many of the dismissals have targeted the roughly 200,000 federal workers who were on probationary status, generally because they had started their positions within the last year. Some fired employees, including some at the National Park Service, have already indicated that they will appeal.Mr. Trump and his supporters have backed the moves as a way to cut what they see as unnecessary government spending. “President Trump was elected with a mandate to create a more effective and efficient federal government that serves all Americans, and we are doing just that,” said a spokesperson for the E.P.A. after that agency announced layoffs.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

      Adams to Sue Trump Administration Over Clawback of Migrant Shelter Funds

      by

      The decision to sue over the $80 million in seized funds comes as the New York City mayor has been accused of supporting the White House’s immigration agenda in exchange for legal leniency.Mayor Eric Adams intends to sue the Trump administration by the end of next week over its clawback of $80 million in federal funding meant to cover the cost of housing migrants in New York City, according to a letter from City Hall.The letter, which was sent to the city comptroller on Friday, said the Law Department was in the process of “drafting litigation papers” in an effort to reverse the administration’s clawback of the funds, which were transferred to New York by the Federal Emergency Management Agency this month.Liz Garcia, a spokeswoman for Mr. Adams, said the suit was expected to be filed by Friday. The mayor’s intention to sue was first reported by Politico on Friday.The decision by Mr. Adams to take a legal stand against the Trump administration on an immigration-related issue comes at a critical moment for the mayor, who this week faced mounting calls to resign after Manhattan’s acting U.S. attorney, Danielle R. Sassoon, accused him of trading concessions on immigration policy for the dismissal of the corruption charges against him.On Monday, the Justice Department’s No. 2 official, Emil Bove III, ordered Manhattan prosecutors to drop the case against Mr. Adams.Mr. Bove said the move had nothing to do with the case’s legal strengths, but rather that its prosecution would impede Mr. Adams’s ability to cooperate with the Trump administration’s immigration policies, a highly unusual justification for dropping criminal charges.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

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Barrage of Trump’s Awful Ideas Is Doing Exactly What It’s Supposed To

      by

      The first month of the second Trump presidency has put the lie to the widespread wisdom that Donald Trump has no ideology and no ideas, only an insatiable thirst for power and money. Trump has shown that he has ideas. So many ideas. They are just really bad ideas:The United States can own, ethnically cleanse and redevelop Gaza as a luxury resort. The U.S. will buy Greenland and take possession of the Panama Canal. The government will become more efficient by cutting the Department of Education, U.S.A.I.D., medical and science research and many many jobs. D.E.I. caused the collision of an Army helicopter and a passenger plane in the air near Washington, D.C. Immigrants and transgender people are an existential threat to Americans. The president can and should rule by decree. These are all ideas, in the sense that they are opinions, beliefs or expressions of a possible course of action.Some of these ideas would have seemed unthinkable just weeks ago. But now that they have been thought and uttered by the man in possession of the world’s biggest megaphone, all of us are forced to engage with them. Otherwise sane people start debating questions like: Could the U.S. really take over Gaza? Would Egypt or Jordan go along with the ethnic cleansing project? Can trillions of dollars really be cut from the federal budget with a few keystrokes? Is there evidence that D.E.I. caused the crash? Are all immigrants criminals? Do trans people exist? Did the founders intend to check the power of the executive?Flooding the ether with bad ideas isn’t Trump’s unique know-how — it’s standard autocratic fare. Hannah Arendt used the word “preposterous” to describe the ideas that underpinned 20th-century totalitarian regimes. Bad ideas do a lot of the work of building autocracy. By forcing us to engage with them, they make our conversations, our media and our society dumber. By conjuring the unimaginable — radical changes in the geography of human relationships, the government and the world itself as we have known it — they plunge us into an anxious state in which thinking is difficult. That kind of anxiety is key to totalitarian control.Life under autocracy can be terrifying, as it already is in the United States for immigrants and trans people. But those of us with experience can tell you that most of the time, for most people, it’s not frightening. It is stultifying. It’s boring. It feels like trying to see and breathe under water — because you are submerged in bad ideas, being discussed badly, being reflected in bad journalism and, eventually, in bad literature and bad movies.Much has been said about the Democrats’ failure to sound the alarm loudly enough, fast enough or broadly enough as Trump has mounted his campaign of destruction. Some of the criticism is not entirely fair. The American system of checks and balances isn’t designed to move as fast as Trump is moving or to stop a bad-faith individual intent on breaking it. A real problem, though, is that Democrats’ objections to these ideas have been primarily procedural. Trump understands politics as the interplay of power and ideology. His opponents see politics as procedure. The contrast has never been starker — and never has the Democrats’ technocratic, legalistic approach been more detrimental to the cause of democracy. It’s not Trump who doesn’t have ideas; it’s the people who should be fighting to stop Trump’s autocratic breakthrough.It is not enough to say that Trump and his crony Elon Musk are staging a coup, though they are. Many of the people who voted for Trump want to see him smash what he has successfully framed as a useless, wasteful government. It is not enough to say that Trump is destroying American democracy. Many of the people who voted for him did so because they have long felt that the system as it is constituted doesn’t represent their interests — and both Trump and Musk have argued that they are wresting democracy back from unelected bureaucrats. It is not enough to say that Trump’s actions have caused a constitutional crisis or that his executive orders may violate laws passed by Congress. Many of the people who voted for Trump longed to see their frustrations addressed by decisive, spectacular action, which he is delivering.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 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship

      by

      On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order that purports to end birthright citizenship for certain children. It does so despite Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which declares, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”The central question raised by Mr. Trump’s order is what it means to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The answer most legal observers give is that it includes virtually anyone born on American soil, including those whom the order is meant to exclude, namely children born to parents in the country illegally or temporarily. Indeed, on Monday, the American Bar Association described the order as an attack on a “constitutionally protected” right. Federal judges in four states have enjoined the order, with one claiming that it “conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment.”Not necessarily.The Supreme Court has held, in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, that children born here to permanent residents are citizens. But it has never squarely held that children born to those illegally present are citizens. When the court addresses that question — which it almost certainly must — it should consider the 14th Amendment’s original purpose and the common-law principle of “jus soli,” or birthright citizenship, which informed the original public meaning of the text. Both relate to the idea of social compact and contradict today’s general assumption that the common-law principle depends solely upon place of birth.The 14th Amendment’s RootsAt the time of its adoption, the publicly known purpose of the 14th Amendment was to extend the benefits of the social compact — including, specifically, the privileges and immunities of citizenship — to African Americans newly freed after the Civil War. (Due in large part to a series of egregious Supreme Court rulings gutting the original letter and spirit of the amendment, that promise of equal citizenship was largely denied for decades.)Abraham Lincoln’s administration, rejecting the reasoning of Dred Scott v. Sandford, had already acknowledged that free African Americans were citizens. As Edward Bates, Lincoln’s first attorney general, wrote in 1862, in an official opinion, “The Constitution uses the word ‘citizen’ only to express the political quality of the individual in his relations to the nation; to declare that he is a member of the body politic, and bound to it by the reciprocal obligation of allegiance on the one side and protection on the other.”The equal protection clause, also found in Section 1 of the amendment, provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This clause was based on the same allegiance-for-protection theory enunciated by Bates.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

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Who Will Stand Up to Trump at High Noon?

      by

      When I was a teenager, my older brother took me to see “Shane.”I wasn’t that into westerns, and the movie just seemed to be about a little boy running after Alan Ladd in the wilderness of the Tetons, screaming “Sha-a-a-a-ne, come back!”I came across the movie on Turner Classic Movies the other night, and this time I understood why the George Stevens film is considered one of best of all time. (The A.F.I. ranks “Shane, come back!” as one of the 50 top movie lines of all time.)The parable on good and bad involves a fight between cattle ranchers and homesteaders. Ladd’s Shane is on the side of the honest homesteaders — including an alluring married woman, played by Jean Arthur. Arriving in creamy fringed buckskin, he is an enigmatic golden gunslinger who goes to work as a farmhand. Jack Palance plays the malevolent hired gun imported by the brutal cattle ranchers to drive out the homesteaders. Palance is dressed in a black hat and black vest. In case you don’t get the idea, a dog skulks away as Palance enters a saloon.It’s so easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys, the right thing to do versus the wrong. Law and order wasn’t a cliché or a passé principle that could be kicked aside if it interfered with baser ambitions.The 1953 film is also a meditation on American masculinity in the wake of World War II. A real man doesn’t babble or whine or brag or take advantage. He stands up for the right thing and protects those who can’t protect themselves from bullies.I loved seeing all those sentimental, corny ideals that America was built on, even if those ideals have often been betrayed.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

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Why Trump’s Takedown of an Anti-Bribery Law Could Backfire

      by

      The president has said the law is unfair to U.S. businesses. But lawyers say weakening it could end up costing corporate America big.President Trump has long argued that a law barring companies from bribing officials of foreign governments stifles deal-making abroad and puts American companies at a disadvantage.But when he effectively put the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act out of commission this week, the order did not elicit the cheers from corporate America that you might have expected. Lawyers who specialize in corporate corruption cases told DealBook that moves to potentially weaken the law could backfire on multinationals by actually raising the cost of doing business overseas.The F.C.P.A. has ensnared the likes of McKinsey, Petrobras and Goldman Sachs in some of the biggest corporate bribery scandals of the past half century. It is supposed to send the message that paying or seeking bribes to win business will not be tolerated anywhere, said William Garrett, a legal expert who manages the Foreign Corrupt Practices Clearinghouse, a project developed by Stanford Law and the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell.The F.C.P.A. isn’t dead. But it’s up for review, and the concern is it could be weakened or shelved. That could create an open season for kickbacks — a price no business wants to pay. “It’s kind of the same idea like you don’t pay kidnappers, right? Because you just embolden the kidnappers to keep doing it,” Garrett said.A recap: Trump ordered the Justice Department to cease enforcing the F.C.P.A. for the next six months and instructed prosecutors to refrain from bringing F.C.P.A. cases until Pam Bondi, his attorney general, reviews and potentially recommends new enforcement guidelines. Bondi can extend the review period if needed.The order raises questions about the law’s future. While it does not eliminate the F.C.P.A., it’s unclear what changes Bondi may make. And what about the S.E.C., another agency that enforces F.C.P.A. violations? Will it, too, demand a second look? Paul Atkins, Trump’s pick to run the agency, has a track record of taking a light touch to corporate enforcement actions.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