Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      A Video From Tufts Captures the Fear and Aggression in Trump’s Crackdown

      by

      The tactics on display in the arrest of Rumeysa Ozturk were not new — plainclothes officers, faces obscured — but as ICE actions ramp up, scrutiny may increase.Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish citizen and a Muslim, was heading out to break her Ramadan fast with friends Tuesday night when she was detained by agents from the Department of Homeland Security.The security video looked like a scene from an undercover sting operation against a 30-year-old Turkish graduate student in her white coat and backpack.Rumeysa Ozturk was walking down a street in Somerville, Mass., on Tuesday when she was surrounded by federal agents wearing dark sweatshirts, some of their faces obscured by black masks. As they pulled off her backpack and handcuffed her, the terrified student let out a cry. One officer explained, “We’re the police.”As the Trump administration ramps up its deportation efforts, critics say tourists, foreign students and other legal immigrants are being subjected to aggressive arrest tactics usually reserved for criminal suspects. They have been swarmed by teams of masked agents in masks, zip-tied and bundled into unmarked vehicles.The tactics are not particularly new. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials declined to answer questions about tactics on Thursday, but former officials said federal immigration agents do wear street clothes to avoid giving away their presence before an arrest. They also can wear face coverings to avoid being singled out and doxxed online.Deborah Fleischaker, a former ICE chief of staff under the Biden administration, said that plainclothes ICE agents have long been allowed to detain undocumented immigrants, though they are required to show their badges when making such arrests.What is shifting are the targets — immigrants with valid visas and legal status. In Ms. Ozturk’s case, supporters say she appears to have merely been a co-author of an editorial in a student newspaper criticizing Tufts’s support for Israel.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 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Trump restored funding for Radio Free Europe and reinstated 33 employees for Cuban radio station.

      by

      Reversing course, the Trump administration on Thursday restored funding for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a federally financed news organization born out of American efforts to counter Soviet propaganda during the Cold War.The decision to again support the news group, known as RFE/RL, came two days after a federal judge in Washington temporarily blocked President Trump’s push to close it down, saying Mr. Trump cannot unilaterally dismantle the news organization established by Congress.Also Thursday, the administration reinstated 33 employees at the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, a federal news outlet critical of the island’s communist government, allowing the radio station’s programming to resume.On March 15, the administration terminated all grants for RFE/RL in a one-page letter, citing Mr. Trump’s executive order a day earlier aimed at eliminating RFE/RL’s parent agency, the U.S. Agency for Global Media.On Thursday, the administration claimed that the lawsuit was moot — since the funding was restored — rather than continuing to argue for the legitimacy of its March 15 decision to cut funding while complying with the judge’s order.The Trump administration still reserved the right to terminate the RFE/RL’s financing “at a later date” if it “were to determine that such termination was appropriate,” according to the administration’s letter to RFE/RL that was submitted to the court.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 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      What We Know About the Detentions of Student Protesters

      by

      The Trump administration is looking to deport pro-Palestinian students who are legally in the United States, citing national security. Critics say that violates free speech protections.Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the State Department under his direction had revoked the visas of more than 300 people and was continuing to revoke visas daily.Pool photo by Nathan HowardThe Trump administration is trying to deport pro-Palestinian students and academics who are legally in the United States, a new front in its clash with elite schools over what it says is their failure to combat antisemitism.The White House asserts that these moves — many of which involve immigrants with visas and green cards — are necessary because those taken into custody threaten national security. But some legal experts say that the administration is trampling on free speech rights and using lower-level laws to crack down on activism.Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Thursday that the State Department under his direction had revoked the visas of more than 300 people and was continuing to revoke visas daily. He did not specify how many of those people had taken part in campus protests or acted to support Palestinians.Mr. Rubio gave that number at a news conference, after noting that the department had revoked the visa of a Turkish graduate student at Tufts University. He did not give details on the other revocations.Immigration officials are known to have pursued at least nine people in apparent connection to this effort since the start of March.The detentions and efforts to deport people who are in the country legally reflect an escalation of the administration’s efforts to restrict immigration, as it also seeks to deport undocumented immigrants en masse.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

      Trump Auto Tariffs: How Major Car Brands Would Be Affected

      by

      The tariffs on cars and auto parts that President Trump announced on Wednesday will have far-reaching effects on automakers in the United States and abroad.But there will be important differences based on the circumstances of each company.TeslaThe company run by Mr. Trump’s confidant, Elon Musk, makes the cars it sells in the United States in factories in California and Texas. As a result, it is perhaps the least exposed to tariffs.But the company does buy parts from other countries — about a quarter of the components by value in its cars come from abroad, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.In addition, Tesla is struggling with falling sales around the world, in part because Mr. Musk’s political activities and statements have turned off moderate and liberal car buyers. Some countries could seek to retaliate against Mr. Trump’s tariffs by targeting Tesla. A few Canadian provinces have already stopped offering incentives for purchases of Tesla’s electric vehicles.General MotorsThe largest U.S. automaker imports many of its best selling and most profitable cars and trucks, especially from Mexico where it has several large factories that churn out models like the Chevrolet Silverado. Roughly 40 percent of G.M.’s sales in the United States last year were vehicles assembled abroad. This could make the company vulnerable to the tariffs.But unlike some other automakers, G.M. has posted strong profits in recent years and is considered by analysts to be on good financial footing. That could help it weather the tariffs better than other companies, especially if the levies are removed or diluted by Mr. Trump.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

      Ro Khanna Wants to Take On JD Vance

      by

      Ro Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley, sees the vice president — a likely heir to President Trump’s political movement — as a unique threat to the constitutional order.Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, has been busy in the early months of 2025 trying out ways to make himself a counterweight to the Trump administration.In a social-media skirmish in February over the administration’s hiring and firing of an official who had written racist posts, Mr. Khanna drew the ire of Vice President JD Vance, who told him, “You disgust me.” More recently, Mr. Khanna has been staging town halls in Republican districts across California with a parade of progressive co-sponsors.Now, he is planning to shine an even brighter spotlight on Mr. Vance — and on himself — with speeches aimed directly at the vice president in April in Ohio, Mr. Vance’s home state, and at their shared alma mater, Yale Law School.In an interview, Mr. Khanna, 48, said he intended to cast Mr. Vance as a unique threat to America’s constitutional order, and argued that there was no time to waste in building the case against Mr. Vance, a likely heir to President Trump’s right-wing political movement.His speaking tour of several cities in Ohio, and on Yale’s campus in New Haven, Conn., is also an effort to nudge himself into the national conversation about the Democratic Party’s future.For Mr. Khanna, who has represented much of Silicon Valley since unseating a Democratic incumbent in 2016, that has been a long-term project. He makes a cascade of cable news appearances and travels widely; his repeated trips to New Hampshire before the 2024 election included appearances as a surrogate for former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and an unusual debate with Vivek Ramaswamy. At last year’s Democratic convention, he arranged to meet with delegates from 15 states.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 Floats Chinese Tariff Cuts in Exchange for TikTok Deal

      by

      President Trump on Wednesday raised the possibility that he could relax steep upcoming tariffs on China in exchange for the country’s support on a deal to sell TikTok to a new owner supported by the United States.Acknowledging that Beijing is “going to have to play a role” in any transaction, Mr. Trump signaled to reporters at the White House that he could be open to negotiation. “Maybe I’ll give them a little reduction in tariffs or something to get it done,” he said.Under a law enacted before Mr. Trump took office, the Chinese-based parent company of TikTok must either sell the social media app’s U.S. operations or face what essentially amounts to a domestic ban. Lawmakers adopted that policy in response to growing, bipartisan concerns that the app posed threats to U.S. national security, which TikTok denies.Congress originally set a January deadline for its ultimatum. But no sale occurred, prompting Mr. Trump — as one of his first executive actions — to delay enforcement of the law for 75 days in the hopes of securing a buyer.The new deadline arrives on April 5, just three days after Mr. Trump separately plans to announce what he has described as “reciprocal” tariffs, imposing new duties on foreign nations based on the trade barriers that they erect to U.S. imports. The president has already subjected Chinese goods to a 20 percent tariff, on top of those he enacted during his first term in office.“Every point in tariffs is worth more than TikTok,” Mr. Trump said about the prospects of a negotiation, adding: “Sounds like something I’d do.”Mr. Trump on Wednesday said he could issue another order that grants the government additional time to find a buyer for TikTok, stressing the goal is an outcome “that’s best for our country.” The president has raised the possibility that the U.S. government could acquire a stake in the app.”If it’s not finished, it’s not a big deal. We’ll extend it,” Mr. Trump said.Chinese officials, for their part, maintain that any sale or divestiture must comply with local export laws, potentially giving Beijing power over any arrangement brokered by Mr. Trump. More

    • 213 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Un tribunal de apelaciones mantiene el bloqueo de las deportaciones que invocan la Ley de Enemigos Extranjeros

      by

      El tribunal dijo que, aunque se necesitaban más argumentos, los abogados de los migrantes probablemente tendrían éxito en sus alegaciones de que a los venezolanos se les había denegado el debido proceso.Un tribunal federal de apelaciones de Washington mantuvo el miércoles, por el momento, el bloqueo del uso por parte del gobierno de Donald Trump de una ley invocada de manera inusual para tiempos de guerra para deportar sumariamente a migrantes venezolanos acusados de pertenecer a una violenta banda.En una votación de 2 a 1, un panel del Tribunal de Apelaciones de Estados Unidos para el Circuito del Distrito de Columbia dijo que era probable que los migrantes venezolanos tuvieran éxito en sus alegaciones de que el gobierno no puede utilizar la ley de guerra, la Ley de Enemigos Extranjeros, para trasladarlos sumariamente a una prisión en El Salvador sin una audiencia.“El plan de expulsión del gobierno niega a los demandantes siquiera un hilo del debido proceso, aunque el gobierno reconozca su derecho a la revisión judicial de su expulsión”, escribió la jueza Patricia A. Millett.La decisión asestó un duro golpe a los esfuerzos del gobierno de Trump por impulsar su programa de migración mediante la ley de guerra, pero la orden subyacente expirará de todos modos dentro de unos días. Es probable que el juez James E. Boasberg, presidente del Tribunal Federal de Distrito de Washington, vuelva a pronunciarse sobre la conveniencia de dictar una orden judicial de mayor duración.A mediados de marzo, Boasberg dictó una orden de restricción que prohibía al gobierno de Trump utilizar la Ley de Enemigos Extranjeros para expulsar sumariamente a los venezolanos que, según él, pertenecen a la banda Tren de Aragua. Su orden no prohíbe al gobierno detener a esos hombres ni deportarlos tras las audiencias previstas en la ley de migración usual.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Loses Bid to Pause Ruling on Federal Funding Freeze

      by

      The ruling let stand a district court judge’s order that had blocked agencies from categorically pausing federal funds based on guidance from the Office of Management and Budget.A federal appeals court on Wednesday left in place a lower court’s ruling that blocked the Office of Management and Budget from enacting a sweeping freeze on federal funding to states, writing that it posed an obvious risk to states that depend on the money.The decision denied a request from the Trump administration to stay a ruling by Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the Federal District Court for the District of Rhode Island this month. Judge McConnell found that the administration had effectively subverted Congress in choking off funds in ways that jeopardized state governments and the services they provide their residents.A coalition of nearly two dozen attorneys general from Democratic-led states had sued in January to halt the freeze. They argued that the funding, including critical disaster relief disbursed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and early childhood education support provided through Head Start, had all been thrown into doubt.In their opinion, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit wrote that the freeze would cause the states an array of irreparable harms, including forced taking on of debt, “impediments to planning, hiring and operations,” and disruptions to research projects underway at state universities.In its original guidance at issue in the lawsuit, the Office of Management and Budget had advised agencies that the pause pertained only to funding streams that were affected by some of President Trump’s early executive orders, such as those aimed at ending diversity, equity and inclusion programs and climate change funds.The states behind the lawsuit, however, argued that the pause had been conducted chaotically and had caused significant upheaval, preventing them from gaining access to federal grants that seemed to fall outside those orders.As an example, in a filing on Wednesday night, an assistant attorney general from Illinois said that the state was still unable to attain money through the Earthquake State Assistance grant program.In their opinion declining to stay Judge McConnell’s preliminary injunction, the judges wrote that the states had documented numerous cases of “pauses, freezes, and sudden terminations of obligated funds” suggesting that the freeze on federal funds was often indiscriminate. The arbitrary nature of the freeze, they wrote, further suggested that the coalition of states was likely to prevail in the lawsuit. More