Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Ecuadorean President’s Opponent Contests His Re-Election Win

      by

      In a divisive election season, Daniel Noboa pledged to bring law and order. His opponent immediately contested the results.Ecuador’s president, who unexpectedly surged in the polls to secure a shortened term in 2023, was declared the victor of the presidential election with a decisive lead on Sunday in a race that showed voters’ faith in his vows to tackle the security crisis with an iron fist.Daniel Noboa, 37, defeated Luisa González, 47, the handpicked successor of former President Rafael Correa.Both candidates accused the other of electoral violations throughout the election season, and Ms. González said she would not recognize the results of the election, in a speech from the headquarters of her party, Citizen Revolution.“I want to be very clear and emphatic: The Citizen Revolution has always recognized a defeat in the last elections when polls, tracking and statistics have shown it,” Ms. González said. “Today, we do not recognize these results.”Mr. Noboa celebrated his victory from the coastal town of Olón.“This day has been historic,” he said. “There is no doubt who the winner is.”The day before the election, Mr. Noboa declared a state of emergency in seven states, most of them González strongholds, raising fears that he was trying to suppress the vote among her supporters. The declaration restricts social activities and allows police and military to enter homes without permission.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 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Stocks Notch Gains After More Tariff Whiplash

      by

      After exempting Chinese imports of smartphones, chips and other electronics, President Trump said on Sunday the carve outs were only temporary.Markets in Asia moved higher on Monday after a weekend that brought more shifts in strategy from President Trump about tariffs.Stocks in Japan rose a little over 1 percent while benchmarks went up 2 percent in Hong Kong and less than 1 percent in mainland China. S&P 500 stock futures, which let investors bet on how the index might perform when it opens in New York, were about 0.50 percent higher.The modest rally followed another chaotic week on Wall Street, with the S&P 500 starting with losses but ending with its best weekly performance since November 2022. The gains were driven by Mr. Trump’s announcement on Wednesday that he would pause for 90 days the “reciprocal” tariffs he had imposed on dozens of countries just a week earlier.On Friday night, after Mr. Trump had repeatedly said he would spare no industry, U.S. customs officials exempted a host of technology products imported from China. That means smartphones, semiconductors, computers and other equipment would not face most of the 145 percent tariffs Mr. Trump has imposed on China.The carve outs were viewed as a win for Apple and other American tech giants because tech products and components are a key part of American imports from China. A spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Commerce on Sunday called it a “small step” in “correcting” the tariffs Mr. Trump has put on China.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 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Teenager Charged With Killing Mother and Stepfather in a Plan to Assassinate Trump

      by

      A Wisconsin teenager was arrested last month on several charges, including two counts of first-degree murder. Federal investigators said he had a broader plot to kill the president.A Wisconsin teenager has been charged in the killing of his mother and stepfather in what the federal authorities described as an attempt to obtain the money and autonomy he believed was necessary for a plot to kill President Trump and overthrow the government.The teenager, Nikita Casap, 17, was arrested last month in the deaths of his mother, Tatiana Casap, 35, and stepfather, Donald Mayer, 51, according to the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department.Sheriff’s deputies found the bodies at the family’s home in Waukesha, about 17 miles southwest of Milwaukee, after receiving a call on Feb. 28 requesting a welfare check, the department said.According to federal documents unsealed on Friday, the fatal shootings were part of a plan by Mr. Casap, who identified with a right-wing terrorist network known as the Order of Nine Angels, to assassinate President Trump in what he believed would “foment a political revolution in the United States,” federal investigators said.Mr. Casap also paid, at least in part, for a drone and explosives that he planned to use in an attack, according to the documents, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.Mr. Casap’s lawyers could not be immediately reached on Sunday for comment.A self-described “manifesto,” found on Mr. Casap’s phone and detailed in the federal documents, contained images and praise of Adolf Hitler, as well as instructions to others to make bombs.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

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump officials renew opposition to ruling on Maryland man wrongly deported to El Salvador

      by

      The Trump administration on Sunday evening doubled down on its assertion that a federal judge cannot force it to bring back to the United States a Maryland man who was unlawfully deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador last month.In a brief legal filing, the Justice Department reiterated its view that courts lack the ability to dictate steps that the White House should take in seeking to return the man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, to U.S. soil, because the president alone has broad powers to handle foreign policy.“The federal courts have no authority to direct the executive branch to conduct foreign relations in a particular way, or engage with a foreign sovereign in a given manner,” lawyers for the department wrote. “That is the ‘exclusive power of the president as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations.’”The position taken by Trump officials was not the first time they had tried to defy efforts compelling them to seek Mr. Abrego Garcia’s return from El Salvador. Still, their continued recalcitrance meant that Mr. Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old father of three, would for now remain at the CECOT prison in El Salvador, where he was sent with scores of other migrants on March 15.The administration’s stubbornness was also likely to heighten tensions between the White House and the judge overseeing the case, Paula Xinis. Judge Xinis has scheduled a hearing to discuss next steps in the matter on Tuesday in Federal District Court in Maryland.The conflict has persisted even though the Supreme Court last week unanimously ordered the administration to “facilitate” Mr. Abrego Garcia’s release from Salvadoran custody. Trump officials have in fact already admitted that they made an “administrative error” when they put Mr. Abrego Garcia on the plane to El Salvador in the first place.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

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Caution and Courage on Campus Speech

      by

      More from our inbox:Fired in a Quake Zone Rachel Stern for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Universities Like the One I Run Aren’t Afraid to Let People Argue,” by Michael I. Kotlikoff, the president of Cornell (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, March 31):As the father of a high school senior currently deciding where to attend college, I agreed with much of what Dr. Kotlikoff had to say. But I was troubled by what he didn’t say. Right now, the greatest threat to academic freedom is the Trump administration.Foreign students are being detained and threatened with deportation for constitutionally protected speech. The independence of academic departments is being threatened by the White House. Universities are scrubbing their official documents of words the administration deems unacceptable. Defending free speech on campus while not calling this out by name can have only one explanation: fear.I sympathize. Putting your institution in this administration’s cross hairs risks devastating punishment. But when those who ought to be the greatest defenders of intellectual freedom stay silent or address such threats obliquely, we should all be scared.When I was a college student, I got to live out the idyllic fantasy that elite schools have marketed for generations: stimulating classes, extracurriculars and lazy afternoons in the quad. My daughter might have a very different experience. Her school might face devastating budget cuts for daring to defy the president. She’ll likely see research disrupted, graduate students’ and professors’ lives upended. She might witness international students being apprehended by masked law enforcement officers for speaking freely.I’m sorry she won’t get my carefree experience. But I hope the leadership of her school shows her something far more valuable: courage.Michael HandelmanBrooklynTo the Editor:Michael I. Kotlikoff’s essay rang true to me — not as theory, but as lived experience. I was a Cornell undergraduate when Donald Trump was first elected in 2016. I sat in a class where a professor asked if any students were Republican. Nobody raised a hand.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Harvard Professors Sue Trump Administration Over Threat to Federal Funds

      by

      Two groups representing Harvard professors sued the Trump administration on Friday, saying that its threat to cut billions in federal funding for the university violates free speech and other First Amendment rights.The lawsuit by the American Association of University Professors and the Harvard faculty chapter of the group follows the Trump administration’s announcement earlier this month that it was reviewing about $9 billion in federal funding that Harvard receives. The administration also sent the school a list of demands that it must meet if it wants to keep the funds.The suit, filed in the Federal District Court in Massachusetts, seeks a temporary restraining order to block the Trump administration from cutting the funds.“This action challenges the Trump administration’s unlawful and unprecedented misuse of federal funding and civil rights enforcement authority to undermine academic freedom and free speech on a university campus,” the lawsuit said.The White House did not respond immediately to a request for comment.The Trump administration has been on a campaign against elite universities that it views as being too lax on antisemitism. In a recent letter to Harvard, the administration said the school had “fundamentally failed to protect American students and faculty from antisemitic violence.” Other top schools like Columbia and Cornell have also been targeted.Harvard did not respond to a request for comment on Saturday. In recent weeks, Alan Garber, the university president, has said that Harvard had spent “considerable effort” during the past 15 months addressing antisemitism, adding that there was still more work to be done.In a statement, Andrew Manuel Crespo, a law professor at Harvard and general counsel of the AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter, said the administration’s policies are a pretext to chill universities and their faculties from engaging in speech, teaching and research that don’t align with President Trump’s views.“Harvard faculty have the constitutional right to speak, teach and conduct research without fearing that the government will retaliate against their viewpoints by canceling grants,” Mr. Crespo said.On Saturday afternoon, hundreds of protesters, including students, professors and even the mayor of Cambridge, braved the cold to protest against the Trump administration’s threat to cut Harvard’s funding. At a packed park in Cambridge, Mass., home to Harvard’s campus, they called on the university to lead the charge against the government’s crackdown on higher education.“Harvard possesses not just the resources to withstand the pressure,” said Mayor Denise Simmons of Cambridge, “but the moral obligation to do so.”Miles J. Herszenhorn contributed reporting from Cambridge, Mass. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      It’s a Mistake to Leave Human Rights Out of Iran Talks

      by

      When the Islamic Republic of Iran marked its 46th anniversary in February, protests erupted in the remote southwestern city of Dehdasht. Iranians chanted anti-regime slogans and held signs reading, “From Dehdasht to Tehran, unity, unity.” The demonstrations were part of a national movement that has been simmering since 2022, after the killing of a 22-year-old Kurdish Iranian woman, Mahsa Amini, prompted tens of thousands of Iranians to take to the streets to seek justice and demand freedom. The Women, Life, Freedom uprising has continued through rooftop chants, daily defiance of the regime’s hijab law and sporadic, smaller protests across the country.President Trump should not forget the Iranian people’s resolve when his Middle East special envoy, Steve Witkoff, sits down for talks with Iran’s foreign minister over its nuclear program on Saturday in Oman. The Trump administration has reinstated a maximum pressure policy designed to stop Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon and counter its influence abroad. But so far, the administration has conspicuously omitted a critical issue for Iranians: human rights. It’s a stark departure from Trump’s first-term agenda, which condemned violations in Iran and framed human rights as a fundamental component of its foreign policy vision.More important, it’s a grave miscalculation. Decades of U.S. precedent show that upholding human rights has been integral to helping keep America secure. The Carter and Reagan administrations, in particular, used human rights diplomacy as a critical tool to negotiate with the Soviet Union, using public and private pressure to secure arms control agreements, advocating for oppressed populations behind the Iron Curtain and bringing to a close one of the most dangerous eras of the 20th century.Mr. Trump still has an opportunity — arguably, an obligation — to push for human rights as a central element of talks with Tehran. Doing so would place him on the right side of history, bolster U.S. credibility among many Iranians and strengthen his negotiating position. Without it, many Iranians who oppose the Islamic republic will see any potential agreement as merely throwing a lifeline to an increasingly unpopular regime. Uprisings are bound to persist amid heavy repression. Without accountability, justice and improvement in the human-rights situation, these waves will almost certainly cause instability in Iran and the region.Protests that erupted in December 2017 — at the time, the most widespread geographically since the 1979 revolution — sparked waves of uprisings against the regime’s mismanagement, corruption and repression. According to the U.N. Human Rights Council’s Fact-Finding Mission on Iran, human-rights violations during the 2022 uprising amounted to crimes against humanity: Security forces killed at least 551 protesters and bystanders, including 68 children, and arrested as many as 60,000.Since then, the clerical establishment has continued to discriminate against women and girls, in what Iranian activists and human-rights defenders — including the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Narges Mohammadi, who is on furlough from a more than 13-year prison sentence — call gender apartheid. A draconian hijab and chastity bill passed in December imposes still harsher restrictions on women; penalties now include death. While the law has been paused, parts are being enforced.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 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Stock Ownership Is What Really Divides Americans

      by

      In a pamphlet published in 1711, Jonathan Swift lamented the “folly” of those who “mistake the echo of a London coffeehouse for the voice of the kingdom.” Those informal salons were, he wrote, frequented by people whose wealth depended on their shares in the Bank of England or the East India Company or “some other stock.” If the responses to the Trump administration’s tariff policies have shown us anything, it is that, like most of the ills against which Swift railed, this unfortunate tendency to conflate stockholders with the nation remains very much with us.The greatest division in American life is not between so-called red and blue states, or between urban and rural citizens, but instead between those who own stock and those who do not. For those who do, economic security can be measured in portfolio statements; the rest — roughly 40 percent of Americans — must make do with such antiquated metrics as the cost of housing or even the price of eggs.This division is not merely economic; it is also ideological. Though many Americans own at least some stock, 10 percent of Americans own 93 percent of it. Yet the elite stock-owning class has convinced itself that what is good for the S&P 500 is good for America. Worse, many Americans who own stock through retirement plans or pension plans have been convinced to believe this, too, even though their interests tend not to align neatly with those of multimillionaires.The result is a kind of ideological capture in which any policy that does not serve the immediate interests of shareholders is dismissed as reckless, radical or economically illiterate. The common good, insofar as it is considered at all, must first be translated into the language of market returns. Can anything be good if it does not make the line go up? The question (we are told) answers itself.Like awed visitors to the oracle at Delphi, we consult the Dow Jones and the S&P 500 with solemn credulity, and their half-random fluctuations are taken as portents of divine favor, or else as intimations of the coming wrath of heaven’s gracious ones. All presidents — including Donald Trump — genuflect before this altar, and most of us implicitly regard any policy that displeases the great god Wall Street as a kind of sacrilege. We treat the stock market as the final arbiter of our collective well-being.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