Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Law Firms Made Deals With Trump. Now He Wants More From Them.

      by

      To avoid retribution, big firms agreed to provide free legal services for uncontroversial causes. To the White House, that could mean negotiating trade deals — or even defending the president and his allies.When some of the nation’s biggest law firms agreed to deals with President Trump, the terms appeared straightforward: In return for escaping the full force of his retribution campaign, the firms would do some free legal work on behalf of largely uncontroversial causes like helping veterans.Mr. Trump, it turns out, has a far more expansive view of what those firms can be called on to do.Over the last week, he has suggested that the firms will be drafted into helping him negotiate trade deals.He has mused about having them help with his goal of reviving the coal industry.And he has hinted that he sees the promises of nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services that he has extracted from the elite law firms — including Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom; and Willkie Farr & Gallagher — as a legal war chest to be used as he wishes.“Have you noticed that lots of law firms have been signing up with Trump: $100 million, another $100 million for damages that they’ve done,” Mr. Trump said at an event last week with coal miners, without specifying what he meant by damages.None of the firms have acknowledged any wrongdoing. They were targeted with punitive executive orders or implicit threats for representing or aiding Mr. Trump’s political foes or employing people he sees as having used the legal system to come after him.The deals have been widely criticized, as they are seen by many in the legal community as unconstitutional and undemocratic. Four firms whom Mr. Trump leveled executive orders against have fought them in court, all quickly receiving rulings from federal judges who temporarily halted them.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 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      China Girds for Economic Stress of Trump’s Tariffs

      by

      The economy grew steadily from January through March, but U.S. tariffs pose a risk for China in the coming weeks and months.President Trump’s tariffs have been good for China’s economic growth. At least they were over the first three months of the year, as the country’s factories raced to ship exports ahead of the trade restrictions.China’s National Bureau of Statistics reported on Wednesday that the country’s gross domestic product grew 1.2 percent from the last three months of 2024. If that pace continues, the Chinese economy will expand at an annual rate of 4.9 percent.But whether China can maintain that growth is shrouded in uncertainty.Pinned down by tariffs that threaten to freeze trade with its biggest customer, China’s economy is facing one of its greatest challenges in years.Growth in the early months of this year was propelled by rapidly rising exports and the manufacturing investment and production necessary to support those exports. Sales of electric cars, household appliances, consumer electronics and furniture were also strong because of ever-widening government subsidies for buyers.Then on April 2, Mr. Trump started escalating tariffs, which reached an extraordinary 145 percent for more than half of China’s exports to the United States.Mr. Trump’s first two rounds of tariffs on Chinese goods, 10 percent in February and again in March, had little immediate effect on exports. China’s overall exports in March rose 12.4 percent in dollar terms from a year earlier, as some exporters appeared to rush shipments to docks before tariffs could go even higher.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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      What to Know as Trump Freezes Federal Funds for Harvard and Other Universities

      by

      The showdown between the Trump administration and institutions of higher learning intensified on Tuesday, when President Trump threatened Harvard University’s tax-exempt status after the school refused to accept his administration’s demands on hiring, admissions and curriculum.His threat, and the stakes involved, highlighted not only the billions of dollars in government funding that colleges receive every year but how that practice started and what all that money goes toward.When did colleges and universities begin receiving substantial federal funds?Around the time of World War II, the U.S. government started funding universities for the purpose of aiding the war effort, funneling money toward medical research, innovation and financial aid for students.The relationship between the federal government and higher education soon became symbiotic. As the government counted on universities to produce educated and employable students, as well as breakthrough scientific research, universities came to rely on continued funding.In 1970, the government dispersed about $3.4 billion to higher education. Today, individual colleges depend on what could be billions of dollars, which mainly go toward financial aid and research. Harvard alone receives $9 billion.What does the government money fund, and what kinds of programs will lose out if it is cut?The funding freezes have caused work stoppages, cut contracts, imperiled medical research and left students in limbo. Reductions can also affect hospitals that are affiliated with universities, like the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Boston Children’s Hospital, both of which are affiliated with Harvard.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 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Why Harvard Decided to Fight Trump

      by

      The Trump administration will freeze over $2 billion in federal funds because Harvard refused to comply with a list of demands. Harvard leaders believed saying no was worth the risk.Late last week, officials at Harvard University were trying to decipher what the Trump administration wanted the school to do to combat antisemitism.The government had made some straightforward demands, like requiring the school to ban masks, which are often favored by protesters.But other demands seemed vague.Then, late on Friday night, the federal government sent Harvard a five-page fusillade of new demands that would reshape the school’s operations, admissions, hiring, faculty and student life.It took less than 72 hours for Harvard to say no.The decision is the most overt defiance by a university since President Trump began pressuring higher education to conform to his political priorities.It came after leaders at Harvard, during intense discussions over the weekend, determined that what the government was proposing represented a profound threat to the 388-year-old university’s independence and mission.Harvard has extraordinary financial and political firepower for a clash with Washington. And the university’s leaders watched Columbia University reel, as the Trump administration made more demands, even after the school capitulated.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Hong Kong Suspends Packages to the U.S., Wading Into the Trump Trade War

      by

      The move comes before President Trump’s planned imposition of new tariffs on small packages sent to the United States from Hong Kong and China.Wading into the trade war, Hong Kong said on Wednesday that its postal service will no longer send packages to the United States.It is the city’s first move in a spiraling tit-for-tat trade war between China and the United States that is reordering global shipping routes.President Trump this month ordered the closure of a loophole that allowed retailers to send clothes and goods from China and Hong Kong, a special administrative region, to the United States without having to pay tariffs. After that change takes effect on May 2, United States Customs and Border agents will begin to collect previously exempted tariffs on shipments worth less $800.Hongkong Post said it would immediately stop accepting surface postal items containing goods to the United States. It said it was taking the action in response to President Trump’s tariffs.“The U.S. is unreasonable, bullying and imposing tariffs abusively,” the postal service said in a statement posted to the Hong Kong government’s website.The postal service said it would contact senders who posted packages with goods that have not yet been shipped, to return the packages and refund their postage.“The public in Hong Kong should be prepared to pay exorbitant and unreasonable fees due to the U.S.’s unreasonable and bullying acts,” it said. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Tariffs Could Raise iPhone Prices, But Affordable Options Remain

      by

      Even if gadget prices surge, we have plenty of cheaper options, like buying last year’s phone model instead of the latest and greatest.On Friday, amid a tariff-induced frenzy that drove hordes of consumers to panic-buy iPhones, President Trump announced a tariff exemption on electronics like smartphones and computers. For a moment, widespread anxiety about a potential $2,000 iPhone dissipated.But two days later, the Trump administration said smartphones and computers were likely to be hit with new tariffs targeting semiconductors, or chips. More expensive iPhones could come after all! Talk about whiplash.Don’t panic. Even if tariffs did cause the iPhone’s price to surge, we would have plenty of cheaper options, like buying last year’s phone model instead of the latest and greatest.The most important lesson we can learn from the turmoil: The only consistent way to save money on tech is to use devices for as long as possible, which requires maintaining them as you would a car, and upgrading only when you must.“Buy the best and drive it into the ground,” said Ramit Sethi, a personal finance expert. “Holding that item for longer will bring down the overall cost of ownership.”There remains lots of uncertainty around future costs of tech hardware in general. Nintendo this month canceled plans to start taking orders for its game console, the $450 Nintendo Switch 2, to evaluate the impact of tariffs on pricing and availability. Costs of some accessories, like phone chargers, power bricks and cases, have already risen on Amazon.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 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Tariff Threat for Drug imports Poses Big Political Risks

      by

      Levies on Americans’ daily prescriptions and other medicines could raise costs, spur rationing and lead to shortages of critical drugs.President Trump’s decision to move a step closer to imposing tariffs on imported medicines poses considerable political risk, because Americans could face higher prices and more shortages of critical drugs.The Trump administration filed a federal notice on Monday saying that it had begun an investigation into whether imports of medicines and pharmaceutical ingredients threaten America’s national security, an effort to lay the groundwork for possible tariffs on foreign-made drugs.Mr. Trump has repeatedly said he planned to impose such levies, to shift overseas production of medicines back to the United States. Experts said that tariffs were unlikely to achieve that goal: Moving manufacturing would be hugely expensive and would take years.It was not clear how long the investigation would last or when the planned tariffs might go into effect. Mr. Trump started the inquiry under a legal authority known as Section 232 that he has used for other industries like cars and lumber.Mr. Trump said in remarks to reporters on Monday that pharmaceutical tariffs would come in the “not too distant future.”“We don’t make our own drugs anymore,” Mr. Trump said. “The drug companies are in Ireland, and they’re in lots of other places, 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

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Vibe Shifts Against the Right

      by

      Alex Kaschuta’s podcast, “Subversive,” used to be a node in the network between weird right-wing internet subcultures and mainstream conservatism. She hosted men’s rights activists and purveyors of “scientific” racism, neo-reactionary online personalities with handles like “Raw Egg Nationalist” and the Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters. Curtis Yarvin, a court philosopher of the MAGA movement who wants to replace democracy with techno-monarchy, appeared on the show twice. In 2022, Kaschuta spoke at the same National Conservatism conference as Ron DeSantis and Marco Rubio.Finding progressive conventional wisdom hollow and unfulfilling, Kaschuta was attracted to the contrarian narratives and esoteric ideas of the thinkers and influencers sometimes known as the “dissident right.” They presented liberal modernity — with its emphasis on racial and gender equality, global cooperation, secularism and orderly democratic processes — as a Matrix-like illusion sustained by ideological coercion, and themselves as the holders of freedom-giving red pills.For Kaschuta, who lives in Romania, the promise of a more authentic, organic society, freed from the hypocrisies of the existing order, was apparently inviting. “There’s always been something tantalizing about the idea that the world is not how it is presented to you,” she wrote on her blog. “A frontier opens up.”But over the last couple of years, that frontier started seeming to her more like a dead end. Recently, she abandoned the movement. “The vibe is shifting yet again,” Kaschuta wrote on X last week. “The cumulative IQ of the right is looking worse than the market.”Kaschuta is not alone; several people who once appeared to find transgressive right-wing ideas scintillating are having second thoughts as they watch Donald Trump’s administration put those ideas into practice. The writer Richard Hanania once said that he hated bespoke pronouns “more than genocide,” and his 2023 book, “The Origins of Woke: Civil Rights Law, Corporate America, and the Triumph of Identity Politics,” provided a blueprint for the White House’s war on D.E.I. But less than three months into Trump’s new term, he regrets his vote, telling me, “The resistance libs were mostly right about him.”Nathan Cofnas, a right-wing philosophy professor and self-described “race realist” fixated on group differences in I.Q., wrote on X, “All over the world, almost everyone with more than half a brain is looking at the disaster of Trump (along with Putin, Yoon Suk Yeol, et al.) and drawing the very reasonable conclusion that right-wing, anti-woke parties are incapable of effective governance.” (Yoon Suk Yeol is South Korea’s recently impeached president.)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