United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      China Accuses U.S. of Blackmail After Trump Threatens More Tariffs

      by

      The country’s commerce ministry called President Trump’s threat to escalate tariffs on China by another 50 percent “blackmail.”China lashed out at the United States on Tuesday after President Trump demanded that Beijing rescind its retaliatory tariffs or face an additional 50 percent U.S. levy, calling his threat “blackmail,” as tensions between the two major powers rose.The Ministry of Commerce, without referring to the American president by name, said that Beijing had noted that the United States had threatened to impose a further 50 percent tariff on China. It said that Beijing would take countermeasures to safeguard its interests.“The U.S. threat to escalate tariffs on China is a mistake on top of a mistake, which once again exposes the blackmail nature of the United States,” the ministry’s statement said. “China will never accept it. If the United States insists on its own way, China will fight to the end.”China had announced last week that it would match Mr. Trump’s tariffs by imposing a retaliatory 34 percent tax on imports from America. The latest escalation that Mr. Trump described on Monday, if imposed, could bring the U.S. tariff on Chinese goods to 104 percent. For some products, though, the rate is likely to be much higher because of levies that date back to Mr. Trump’s first term. Mr. Trump also threatened to halt any further negotiations.American consumers last year bought $440 billion of goods from China, making it the second-largest source of U.S. imports after Mexico. Taken together, it could prove costly for American importers bringing in clothing, cellphones, chemicals and machinery from China.China said that the United States should cancel all unilateral tariffs against China, “stop suppressing China’s economy and trade, and properly resolve differences with China through equal dialogue on the basis of mutual respect.”China has been trying for months to engage in high-level talks with the Trump administration to try to lay the ground for a potential summit between Mr. Trump and China’s top leader, Xi Jinping. But despite Mr. Trump saying earlier this year that he was open to engaging with Mr. Xi, Beijing has struggled to receive much of a response from the White House.Berry Wang More

    • 100 Shares79 Views

      in Elections

      Read the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Venezuelan Migrants

      by

      Cite as: 604 U. S.
      (2025)
      9
      SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
      whether its March 15 deportations complied with the Dis-
      trict Court’s orders, it simultaneously sought permission to
      resume summary deportations under the Proclamation.
      The District Court, first, denied the Government’s motion
      to vacate its temporary restraining order, rejecting the as-
      sertion that “the President’s authority and discretion under
      the [Alien Enemies Act] is not a proper subject for judicial
      scrutiny.” App. to BIO 71a. At the very least, the District
      Court concluded, the plaintiffs were “likely to succeed” on
      their claim that, “before they may be deported, they are en-
      titled to individualized hearings to determine whether the
      Act applies to them at all.” 2025 WL 890401, *2. The D. C.
      Circuit, too, denied the Government a requested stay and
      kept in place the District Court’s pause on deportations un-
      der the Alien Enemies Act pending further proceedings.
      2025 WL 914682, *1 (per curiam) (Mar. 26, 2025).
      It is only this Court that sees reason to vacate, for the
      second time this week, a temporary restraining order
      standing “on its last legs.” Department of Education, 604
      U. S., at (JACKSON, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1). Not
      content to wait until tomorrow, when the District Court will
      have a chance to consider full preliminary injunction brief-
      ing at a scheduled hearing, this Court intervenes to relieve
      the Government of its obligation under the order.
      II
      Begin with that upon which all nine Members of this
      Court agree. The Court’s order today dictates, in no uncer-
      tain terms, that “individual[s] subject to detention and re-
      moval under the [Alien Enemies Act are] entitled to judicial
      review’ as to ‘questions of interpretation and constitution-
      ality’ of the Act as well as whether he or she ‘is in fact an
      alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.”” Ante, at 2
      (quoting Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163–164, 172,
      n. 17 (1948)). Therefore, under today’s order, courts below More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Why Did Wall Street Get Trump So Wrong?

      by

      Donald Trump’s 2024 election sent many finance types into spasms of anticipatory ecstasy as they imagined freedom from regulations, taxes and unfamiliar pronouns. “Bankers and financiers say Trump’s victory has emboldened those who chafed at ‘woke doctrine’ and felt they had to self-censor or change their language to avoid offending younger colleagues, women, minorities or disabled people,” The Financial Times reported a few days before Trump’s inauguration. It quoted one leading banker crowing — anonymously — about finally being able to use slurs like “retard” again. The vibes had shifted; the animal spirits were loose.“We’re stepping into the most pro-growth, pro-business, pro-American administration I’ve perhaps seen in my adult lifetime,” gushed the hedge fund manager Bill Ackman in December.One Wall Street veteran, however, understood the risk an unleashed Trump posed to the economy. After Trump’s victory in November, Peter Berezin, chief global strategist at BCA Research, which provides macroeconomic research to major financial institutions, estimated that the chance of a recession had climbed to 75 percent. “The prospect of an escalation of the trade war is likely to depress corporate investment while lowering real household disposable income,” said a BCA report.The surprising thing isn’t that Berezin saw the Trump tariff crisis coming, but that so many of his peers didn’t. You don’t have to be a sophisticated financial professional, after all, to understand that Trump believes, firmly and ardently, in taxing imports, and he thinks any country that sells more goods to America than it buys must be ripping us off. All you had to do was read the news or listen to Trump’s own words. Yet Berezin was an outlier; most of the people who make a living off their financial acumen had less understanding of Trump’s priorities than a casual viewer of MSNBC.On Monday, as stocks whipsawed on shifting news and rumors about the tariffs, I spoke to Berezin, who is based in Montreal, about how Wall Street had gotten Trump so wrong. He told me that many investors who pride themselves on their savvy are in fact just creatures of the herd. “All these cognitive biases that amateur retail investors are subject to, the Wall Street pros, are, if anything, even more subject to them because they’ve got career risk associated with bucking the trend,” he said.People in finance, said Berezin, are more likely to be punished for being too cautious and pessimistic than for being too hopeful and aggressive. Last year, for instance, a famed strategist named Marko Kolanovic left JPMorgan Chase abruptly when his gloomy predictions about 2023 and 2024 turned out to be wrong, or least premature. Mike Wilson, also known for his bearishness, stepped down from his post as chair of Morgan Stanley’s Global Investment Committee, though he stayed with the company. “You don’t get fired for being bullish, but you do get fired for being bearish on Wall Street,” said Berezin.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 Shares106 Views

      in Elections

      El discurso de Trump sobre un tercer mandato desafía la Constitución y la democracia

      by

      La 22.ª Enmienda es clara: el presidente de EE. UU. tiene que renunciar a su cargo tras su segundo mandato. Pero la negativa de Trump a aceptarlo sugiere hasta dónde está dispuesto a llegar para mantenerse en el poder.Después de que el presidente Donald Trump dijera el año pasado que quería ser dictador por un día, insistió en que solo estaba bromeando. Ahora dice que podría intentar aferrarse al poder incluso cuando la Constitución estipula que debe renunciar a él, y esta vez, insiste en que no está bromeando.Puede que sí y puede que no. A Trump le gusta alborotar el avispero y sacar de quicio a los críticos. Hablar de un tercer mandato inconstitucional distrae de otras noticias y retrasa el momento en que se le considere como un presidente saliente. Sin duda, algunos en su propio bando lo consideran una broma, mientras los líderes republicanos se ríen de ello y los ayudantes de la Casa Blanca se burlan de los periodistas por tomárselo demasiado en serio.Pero el hecho de que Trump haya introducido la idea en la conversación nacional ilustra la incertidumbre sobre el futuro del sistema constitucional estadounidense, casi 250 años después de que el país obtuviera la independencia. Más que en ningún otro momento en generaciones, se cuestiona el compromiso del presidente con los límites al poder y el Estado de derecho, y sus críticos temen que el país se encamine por una senda oscura.Después de todo, Trump ya intentó una vez aferrarse al poder desafiando la Constitución, cuando trató de anular las elecciones de 2020 a pesar de haber perdido. Más tarde pidió la “rescisión” de la Constitución para volver a la Casa Blanca sin una nueva elección. Y en las 11 semanas transcurridas desde que reasumió el cargo, ha presionado los límites del poder ejecutivo más que ninguno de sus predecesores modernos.“En mi opinión, esto es la culminación de lo que ya ha empezado, que es un esfuerzo metódico por desestabilizar y socavar nuestra democracia para poder asumir un poder mucho mayor”, dijo en una entrevista el representante Daniel Goldman, demócrata por Nueva York y consejero principal durante el primer juicio político a 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

    • 113 Shares66 Views

      in Elections

      The Nutritionist Marion Nestle Meets Her Moment, At 88

      by

      On a dreary February afternoon in Westchester County, N.Y., the cooks, farmers, servers and other staff of the Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture convened over a roast beef dinner to hear Marion Nestle hold forth on the state of food politics.Dr. Nestle, one of the country’s foremost experts on nutrition policy, was still trying to get her head around the political realignments of the prior months. After his win in November, Donald J. Trump selected Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to run his federal health department. The partnership produced a new take on an old slogan, “Make America Healthy Again.” It also led the McDonald’s-loving Mr. Trump to publicly criticize the “industrial food complex.”The phrasing stood out to Dr. Nestle, a molecular biologist turned nutritionist who has spent decades pushing for stricter regulation of food additives and removing conflicts of interest from government health policy.“He sounds just like me when he talks!” Dr. Nestle, who describes herself as “firmly left-wing,” told the crowd, eliciting laughter. “How is that possible?”Dr. Nestle (pronounced NESS-ul) is not a name on the level of the chef Alice Waters or the food writer Michael Pollan. But among food activists and academics, she is considered one of the most influential framers of the modern food movement. She was among the first, in 2002, to lay the blame for America’s obesity epidemic at the feet of the food industry when she released “Food Politics,” a book of case studies illustrating how the industry manipulates government policy and the scientific establishment to its own ends.Dr. Nestle was 65 when the book came out, and she could have stopped then. Instead, she has been on a run ever since, publishing a dozen more books, globe-trotting to deliver speeches and serving as a go-to source for journalists. But only now, at 88, does she seem to be reaching her peak. For years, Dr. Nestle’s ideas placed her in food policy’s progressive camp. But today, fears about food additives and environmental toxins are rampant, and some of her longest held and most passionate beliefs — about topics like regenerative agriculture, school lunches and additives — are marching toward the bipartisan center.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 Shares132 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Dept. Tries to Use Executive Privilege to Muzzle Fired Pardon Attorney

      by

      Senior officials at the Justice Department are trying to use executive privilege to prevent a lawyer dismissed from the department from testifying to Congress on Monday about the details of a disagreement with supervisors about restoring the gun rights of Mel Gibson, the actor and prominent supporter of President Trump.In a letter reviewed by The New York Times, a lawyer in the office of Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, warned Elizabeth G. Oyer, the Justice Department’s former pardon attorney, that she was “not authorized to disclose” records about the firearms rights issue to lawmakers.A lawyer for Ms. Oyer responded with his own missive, accusing the department of trying to intimidate a whistle-blower on the cusp of a congressional hearing.While the facts of the dispute are limited to a relatively narrow issue, the potential ripple effects could be far-reaching. The administration has already fired dozens of career prosecutors, some of whom have spoken publicly about their experiences, while others may yet still.The new conflict began Friday night, when Ms. Oyer learned that deputy U.S. Marshals were being sent to her home to deliver the Justice Department’s letter. After Ms. Oyer assured the department she had received the letter via email, the deputies’ delivery was canceled.Her lawyer, Michael Bromwich, noted in his letter to Mr. Blanche that Ms. Oyer’s teenage son was home alone at the time.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 Shares112 Views

      in Elections

      JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon Warns of Economic Pain From Trump’s Tariffs

      by

      President Trump’s wave of tariffs threatens to bring both short-term economic pain, including lower growth, and long-term damage to America’s standing and trade relationships around the world, the chief executive of Wall Street’s biggest bank warned on Monday.“The recent tariffs will likely increase inflation and are causing many to consider a greater probability of a recession,” Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive, wrote in his annual letter to shareholders.The warning by Mr. Dimon, one of Wall Street’s most influential leaders, echoes the growing anxiety among corporate chiefs about how the tariffs will play out. Even those who had initially professed support for Mr. Trump’s trade plans are becoming increasingly worried about the consequences.Even before Mr. Trump’s tariff announcement last week, the U.S. economy had been showing signs of strain after years of healthy performance, Mr. Dimon wrote. Inflation was already a worry, Mr. Dimon said, pointing to a yawning fiscal deficit and the need for more infrastructure spending. And stock valuations remain well above historical averages, — even after the recent market sell-off.The potential consequences of the trade fight could make things worse, the letter said. Those include other countries’ efforts to fight back — as China has done by imposing 34 percent counter-levies — and a possible erosion of confidence among consumers and investors. Mr. Dimon also warned about the weakening of the American dollar’s role as the global reserve currency.“If America, for whatever reason, becomes a less-attractive investment destination, the U.S. dollar and the economy could suffer if foreigners sold their U.S. assets,” he wrote.JPMorgan’s own economists have increasingly been saying that a recession is more likely this year, though Mr. Dimon did not personally take a position on those odds in his shareholder letter.While Mr. Dimon asserted that JPMorgan itself was strong enough to withstand the shocks that the levies posed — its traders have profited from previous whipsaws in the markets — the global economy may not be so fortunate. “It is not particularly good for the capital markets,” Mr. Dimon wrote of the tariff-linked volatility.For now, Mr. Dimon wrote that he was hoping for a speedy resolution to the trade battles. “The quicker this issue is resolved, the better because some of the negative effects increase cumulatively over time and would be hard to reverse,” he wrote.The longer-term worry, Mr. Dimon said, is that Mr. Trump’s fight could shred decades-old alliances that cemented the United States’ primacy in the global order. The JPMorgan chief wrote that he was worried that America’s trading partners might seek out deals with the likes of China, Iran or Russia in response to the tariffs.“America First is fine,” Mr. Dimon wrote, referring to Mr. Trump’s description of his policies — “as long as it doesn’t end up being America alone.” More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Lawsuit Accuses Prominent Palestinian American of Supporting Hamas

      by

      The complaint against the businessman, Bashar Masri, does not say that he knew about the Oct. 7 attack in advance but does assert that he was aware of the Hamas military infrastructure at his properties.Families of victims of the Hamas-led terrorist attack on Oct. 7, 2023, sued a prominent Palestinian American businessman on Monday, accusing him of supporting Hamas by developing properties that were crucial to the terrorist group’s operations.According to the lawsuit, Bashar Masri, a wealthy developer, operated hotels and an industrial site in Gaza to “construct and conceal” a labyrinthine network of tunnels that allowed Hamas to “store and launch its rockets at Israel.”“The properties defendants developed with Hamas were not only part of the infrastructure Hamas used in connection with the Oct. 7 attack itself,” the lawsuit added. “Their development deliberately advanced Hamas’s false narrative that it was interested primarily in the economic development of Gaza and a grudging coexistence with Israel.”The lawsuit was filed in Federal District Court in Washington, where Mr. Masri has a home. It does not say that Mr. Masri and the companies he controls knew about the attack in advance but does assert that they were aware of the Hamas military infrastructure at their properties.Mr. Masri, a respected entrepreneur, denied the allegations.Mr. Masri “was shocked to learn through the media that a baseless complaint was filed today referring to false allegations against him and certain businesses he is associated with,” a statement from his office said. “Neither he nor those entities have ever engaged in unlawful activity or provided support for violence and militancy.”The complaint comes at a politically sensitive time for Mr. Masri, who has been linked to the hostage envoy for the Trump administration who has been involved in efforts to free the remaining captives being held by Hamas in Gaza. Mr. Masri is expected to play a role in the reconstruction of Gaza.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