Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      With Painful Layoffs Ahead, Agencies Push Incentives to Quit

      by

      Federal agencies have accelerated their efforts to cut thousands of jobs, offering buyouts and eliminating entire offices as the Trump administration’s deadline to downsize approaches.At least six federal agencies have in recent days extended a “deferred resignation” offer that was originally pitched to government workers in January as a one-time opportunity that would allow employees to resign but continue to be paid for a period of time.The latest offer was sent to employees at the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Housing and Urban Development and Transportation, as well as the General Services Administration, according to emails received by workers at those agencies reviewed by The New York Times.Employees at those agencies have to make their decisions between Monday, April 7, and April 11, depending on the agency, the emails said.President Trump and his top adviser on downsizing the government, Elon Musk, have ordered nearly every agency to reduce staff on a tight deadline to overhaul the government, in part by eliminating programs the president views as ideologically objectionable. Mr. Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency have promised significant savings to American taxpayers as a result, though wages and benefits for the federal work force amount to just 4.3 percent of the $6.3 trillion federal budget, according to the Congressional Budget Office.Mr. Trump has given Mr. Musk wide latitude to effect change, empowering him to effectively shutter agencies.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 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      G.O.P. Bolsters House Majority by Retaining Two Seats in Florida

      by

      The Republicans who were elected on Tuesday to fill seats left empty by Matt Gaetz and Michael Waltz had President Trump’s backing.Two Trump-backed Republicans won special congressional elections in Florida on Tuesday, according to The Associated Press, shoring up their party’s slim majority in the House at a crucial moment for President Trump’s domestic agenda.Jimmy Patronis, the state’s chief financial officer, won the race to replace Matt Gaetz in the First Congressional District, on the western end of the Panhandle. With most of the vote counted late Tuesday, Mr. Patronis had won 57 percent.And State Senator Randy Fine captured the Sixth District seat that had been held by Michael Waltz, now Mr. Trump’s national security adviser. That district is rooted in Daytona Beach and parts of the northeast coast. Mr. Fine had 56.7 percent of the vote as of 9 p.m.Both seats had been expected to remain in Republican hands, though some private polls showed Mr. Fine facing a close contest against Josh Weil, his Democratic opponent. Mr. Weil and Gay Valimont, the Democrat who ran against Mr. Patronis, each raised millions of dollars for their campaigns despite the Democrats’ struggles in Florida.Florida Sixth District Special Election ResultsGet live results and maps from the 2025 Florida special election.Mr. Gaetz resigned from his House seat last year after Mr. Trump nominated him to be attorney general. He later withdrew from consideration for that post, amid an ethics investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct and drug use.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 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Set to Meet With Top Aides to Decide TikTok’s Fate

      by

      President Trump plans to meet with top White House officials on Wednesday to discuss a proposal that could secure TikTok’s future in the United States, two people familiar with the plans said.Mr. Trump will consider a proposal for a new ownership structure for the popular video app, which is owned by the Chinese internet giant ByteDance. Lawmakers and other U.S. officials have argued that the app’s ties to China raise national security concerns, and a federal law that was passed last year requires TikTok to change its ownership or face a ban in the United States. The latest deadline for that ban is Saturday.The meeting is set to include Vice President JD Vance, whom Mr. Trump tapped to find an arrangement to save the popular app early in February, and other top officials, the two people said on the condition of anonymity. The new ownership structure, they said, could include Blackstone, the private equity giant, and Oracle, the technology company.The meeting is another twist in the long national saga of TikTok, which surged in popularity in the United States despite sustained and deep scrutiny in Washington and state capitals. Mr. Trump, who made repeated assurances that he wants to save the app, extended the deadline for a deal in January and suggested that he might do so again if a suitable plan was not reached by early this month.TikTok did not immediately return a request for comment.It is not clear that the kind of deal under discussion would comply with the law, which calls for no more than 20 percent of TikTok or its parent company to be owned by people or companies in so-called foreign adversary countries, a list that includes China.The law also bars a new entity from working with ByteDance to operate its video-recommendation technology or creating a data-sharing agreement.Mr. Trump suggested last week that he might relax upcoming tariffs on China in exchange for the country’s support of a deal.TikTok has maintained that it is not for sale, in part, it says, because the Chinese government would block a deal. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Use of Immigration Law Appears to Conflict With Limits Imposed by Congress

      by

      A crackdown targeting foreign students protesting Israel’s treatment of Palestinians conflicts with free-speech protections that lawmakers added in 1990.The Trump administration is asserting that it has broad power under a 1952 law to kick out foreign students who participated in pro-Palestinian protests. That statute says the secretary of state can deem noncitizens deportable for foreign policy reasons, and the secretary, Marco Rubio, made clear recently that he had already used it to cancel hundreds of student visas.“It might be more than 300 at this point,” Mr. Rubio said last week. “We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visa.”But that expansive conception of power appears to conflict with a key limit Congress added nearly four decades after the law passed. Lawmakers explained that the modification, which is recorded elsewhere in federal statute books, means the law may be used “only in unusual circumstances” and “sparingly” if the problem stems from foreigners’ exercise of free speech.Lawmakers also gave two examples of when deporting someone under the 1952 law over speech would still be legitimate. Both scenarios, laid out in a report explaining the 1990 bill that enacted the restriction, were highly exceptional.The first was if a particular foreigner’s mere presence in the United States would somehow violate a treaty. The other was if it “could result in imminent harm to the lives or property” of Americans abroad, like when allowing the former shah of Iran to come to the United States in 1979 led to a riot at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and a hostage crisis.The additional guardrails raise questions over what rights foreign students are entitled to and underscore the Trump administration’s far-ranging interpretation of its authority in aggressively moving to deport those who have protested Israel’s war in Gaza. The executive branch has broad discretion to deny visas to applicants while they are abroad. But once noncitizens are on American soil, they are protected by the Constitution, which includes the rights to free speech and due process.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 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Sue Trump Over Executive Order on Elections

      by

      Nearly every arm of the Democratic Party united in filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Monday night, arguing that a recent executive order signed by the president seeking to require documentary proof of citizenship and other voting reforms is unconstitutional.The 70-page lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., accuses the president of vastly overstepping his authority to “upturn the electoral playing field in his favor and against his political rivals.” It lists President Trump and multiple members of his administration as defendants.“Although the order extensively reflects the president’s personal grievances, conspiratorial beliefs and election denialism, nowhere does it (nor could it) identify any legal authority he possesses to impose such sweeping changes upon how Americans vote,” the lawsuit says. “The reason why is clear: The president possesses no such authority.”The lawsuit repeatedly argues that the Constitution gives the president no explicit authority to regulate elections, noting that the Elections Clause of the Constitution “is at the core of this action.” That clause says that states set the “times, places and manner” of elections, leaving them to decide the rules, oversee voting and try to prevent fraud. Congress may also pass federal voting laws.As Democrats debate how best to challenge the Trump administration’s rapid expansion of executive power, the lawsuit represents one of the first moments where seemingly every arm of the party is pushing back with one voice.Such unity is further evidence that Democrats still view the issue of democracy as core to their political brand, as well as a key issue that can help them claw back support with voters as they aim to build a new coalition ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. In February, Democrats sued the Trump administration over attempts to control the Federal Election Commission. Weeks earlier, the D.N.C. joined a lawsuit over new voting laws in Georgia.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

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Crucial Week for Trump: New Tariffs and Elections Will Test His Momentum

      by

      Down-ballot races in Florida and Wisconsin are seen as a referendum on the White House, while the president’s to-be-announced reciprocal tariff plan is increasingly worrying investors and consumers.President Trump’s political momentum will face a major test this week as Democrats try to turn various down-ballot races into a referendum on the White House, and Mr. Trump’s long-promised tariffs risk rattling allies and consumers alike.A State Supreme Court election in Wisconsin on Tuesday is seen as an indicator of support for Mr. Trump, particularly after Elon Musk and groups he funds spent more than $20 million to bolster Mr. Trump’s preferred candidate. White House officials have also been increasingly concerned with the unusually competitive race on Tuesday for a deep-red House seat in Florida left vacant after Representative Michael Waltz stepped down to serve as Mr. Trump’s national security adviser.The White House is hoping victories in those races will tighten Mr. Trump’s grip on the Republican Party as his team seeks to overcome the backlash from its inadvertent sharing of military plans on a commercial app with a journalist.The Florida election is critical for Republicans, who hold a narrow majority in the House as they try to pass the president’s agenda. The outcome of the Wisconsin race, in a battleground state that Mr. Trump narrowly won last year, could be a reflection of voters’ views on the president’s gutting of the federal work force, his crackdown on illegal immigration and his moves to purge diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.“It’s a big race,” Mr. Trump said of the Wisconsin judicial contest on Monday while signing executive orders in the Oval Office. “Wisconsin is a big state politically, and the Supreme Court has a lot to do with elections in Wisconsin.”Mr. Trump is also expected to reveal the details of his reciprocal tariff plan on Wednesday. He has labeled it “Liberation Day,” saying the nation will finally break free of past trade relationships that he argues have cheated the United States. Investors, however, are growing more concerned that the tariffs could fuel inflation and slow consumer spending, potentially driving up economic anxieties among voters.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 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Why the Right Still Embraces Ivermectin

      by

      Five years after the pandemic began, interest in the anti-parasitic drug is rising again as right-wing influencers promote it — and spread misinformation about it.Joe Grinsteiner is a gregarious online personality who touts the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin. In a recent Facebook video, he produced a tube of veterinary-grade ivermectin paste — the kind made for deworming horses.He gave the tube a squeeze. Then he licked a slug of the stuff, and gulped.“Yum,” Mr. Grinsteiner said in the Feb. 25 video, one of a number of ivermectin-related posts he has made that have drawn millions of views on Facebook this year. “Actually, that tastes like dead cancer.”Ivermectin, a drug proven to treat certain parasitic diseases, exploded in popularity during the pandemic amid false claims that it could treat or prevent Covid-19. Now — despite a persistent message from federal health officials that its medical benefits are limited — interest in ivermectin is rising again, particularly among American conservatives who are seeing it promoted by right-wing influencers.Mr. Grinsteiner, 54, is a Trump supporter and country music performer who lives in rural Michigan. He has claimed in his videos that ivermectin cured his skin cancer, as well as his wife’s cervical cancer. In a video last month, he said a woman told him her nonverbal autistic child had become verbal after using ivermectin. In a recent phone interview, Mr. Grinsteiner said that he takes a daily dose of ivermectin to maintain his general well-being.There is no evidence to support people taking ivermectin to treat cancer or autism. Yet Mr. Grinsteiner believes that the medical and political establishments just want to keep average people from discovering the healing powers of a relatively affordable drug. 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 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Why Does America Have Presidential Term Limits?

      by

      Congress passed the 22nd Amendment in 1947, creating a two-term limit for American presidents as a check the power of America’s chief executive. But President Trump has not ruled out seeking a third term in office even though the Constitution does not allow it. Here’s what to know about presidential term limits and why they exist.Here’s what you need to know:Has the U.S. always had term limits?Did any presidents try to break with tradition?Have any presidents won a third term?Do other countries have term limits?Has the U.S. always had term limits?Until Congress passed the 22nd Amendment, presidents had largely recognized the precedent established by the nation’s first president, George Washington. In 1796, he declined to seek a third term in office, citing the importance of peaceful transfers of power and the potential for presidential tyranny. Washington’s decision was seen at the time as a guard against the dangers of autocracy, from which the young republic had recently sought to freed itself by declaring independence from the British Empire in 1776.Did any presidents try to break with tradition?Washington’s two-term precedent didn’t stop some of his successors from trying for a third. After serving two consecutive presidential terms, from 1901 to 1909, Theodore Roosevelt returned to the campaign trail in 1912 as a third-party candidate seeking a third term. He was unsuccessful. Before that, Ulysses S. Grant, the former Civil War general, had sought a third term in 1880, but his party declined to give him the nomination.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