United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Taps Kevin Hassett to Lead National Economic Council

      by

      President-elect Donald J. Trump selected Kevin Hassett on Tuesday to be the director of the White House National Economic Council, giving an adviser who served as his top economist during his first term a leading role in steering his economic agenda.As the director of the N.E.C., Mr. Hassett will work closely with the Treasury secretary to push forward Mr. Trump’s economic plans, focused on cutting taxes, increasing tariffs and expanding energy production. The role is one of the most expansive in the administration and will put Mr. Hassett at the center of the most pressing policy debates.“He will play an important role in helping American families recover from the Inflation that was unleashed by the Biden Administration,” Mr. Trump said in a statement. “Together, we will renew and improve our record Tax Cuts, and ensure that we have Fair Trade with Countries that have taken advantage of the United States in the past.”Mr. Trump has been rounding out his economic team, having last week picked Scott Bessent to run the Treasury Department and Howard Lutnick, the former chief executive of Cantor Fitzgerald, to lead the Commerce Department. Those positions, unlike the N.E.C. directorship, require Senate confirmation.Mr. Trump also selected Jamieson Greer, a lawyer and former Trump official, to lead the Office of the United States Trade Representative.Mr. Greer is a partner in international trade at the law firm King & Spalding. During Mr. Trump’s first term, he served as chief of staff to Robert E. Lighthizer, the trade representative at the time. He was involved in the Trump administration’s trade negotiations with China, as well as the renegotiation of NAFTA with Canada and Mexico.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 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Team Signs Transition Agreement but Shuns F.B.I. Clearances

      by

      President-elect Donald J. Trump’s team will have some formal briefings with outgoing staff members, but it has so far refused to allow the F.B.I. to do security clearances for transition members.President-elect Donald J. Trump’s team has signed a transition agreement with the White House that will allow them to begin formal briefings with outgoing staff members in agencies across the government, Mr. Trump’s chief of staff said on Tuesday evening.But Mr. Trump’s team has so far refused to sign an agreement with the Justice Department to allow the F.B.I. to do security clearances for transition members. Without that, Biden administration officials will be unable to share classified information with many of Mr. Trump’s transition aides.The Trump team is also refusing to sign an agreement with the General Services Administration that usually provides secure office space, government email accounts and other support. White House officials said that would make sharing information with Mr. Trump’s officials more difficult over the next two months.In recent decades, incoming presidents have signed agreements with their predecessors to smooth the transition of power. The goal is to ensure that the new administration is ready to take over on Jan. 20 and that its officials adhere to basic ethical standards.Susie Wiles, who will serve as Mr. Trump’s top staff member in the White House, said in a statement that the president-elect had directed that his team sign the traditional memorandum of understanding so that the process of information sharing between the outgoing and incoming administrations could begin.“This engagement allows our intended cabinet nominees to begin critical preparations, including the deployment of landing teams to every department and agency, and complete the orderly transition of power,” Ms. Wiles said in the statement.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

    • 63 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Metamorphosis of Pete Hegseth

      by

      Diana NguyenCarlos PrietoMary Wilson and Lisa Chow and Marion Lozano and Listen and follow ‘The Daily’Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube | iHeartRadioNow that Matt Gaetz has withdrawn from consideration as attorney general, President-elect Donald J. Trump’s most controversial cabinet pick is his selection of Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense.Dave Philipps, who reports on war and the military for The Times, discusses three major deployments that shaped how Mr. Hegseth views the military — and why, if confirmed, he’s so dead-set on disrupting its leadership.Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.On today’s episodeDave Philipps, who reports about war, the military and veterans for The New York Times.As a host on Fox News, Pete Hegseth portrayed some troops charged with war crimes as “heroes.”Tierney L. Cross for The New York TimesBackground readingHis military experiences transformed Mr. Hegseth from a critic of war crimes into a defender of the accused.What to know about Mr. Hegseth, Trump’s pick for defense secretary.There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.Face-checking by More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Plans Tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico That Could Cripple Trade

      by

      President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Monday that he would impose tariffs on all products coming into the United States from Canada, Mexico and China on his first day in office, a move that would scramble global supply chains and impose heavy costs on companies that rely on doing business with some of the world’s largest economies.In a post on Truth Social, Mr. Trump mentioned a caravan of migrants making its way to the United States from Mexico, and said he would use an executive order to levy a 25 percent tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico until drugs and migrants stopped coming over the border.“This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!” the president-elect wrote.“Both Mexico and Canada have the absolute right and power to easily solve this long simmering problem,” he added. “We hereby demand that they use this power, and until such time that they do, it is time for them to pay a very big price!”In a separate post, Mr. Trump also threatened an additional 10 percent tariff on all products from China, saying that the country was shipping illegal drugs to the United States.“Representatives of China told me that they would institute their maximum penalty, that of death, for any drug dealers caught doing this but, unfortunately, they never followed through,” he said.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 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Top Trump Aide Accused of Asking for Money to ‘Promote’ Potential Appointees

      by

      President-elect Donald J. Trump’s legal team found evidence that a top adviser asked for retainer fees from potential appointees in order to promote them for jobs in the new administration, five people briefed on the matter said on Monday.Mr. Trump directed his team to carry out the review of the adviser, Boris Epshteyn, who coordinated the legal defenses in Mr. Trump’s criminal cases and is a powerful figure in the transition. Several people whom Mr. Trump trusts had alerted him that Mr. Epshteyn was seeking money from people looking for appointments, three of the people briefed on the matter said.David Warrington, who was effectively the Trump campaign’s general counsel, conducted the review in recent days, the results of which were described to The New York Times. The review claimed that Mr. Epshteyn had sought payment from two people, including Scott Bessent, whom Mr. Trump recently picked as his nominee for Treasury secretary.According to the review, Mr. Epshteyn met with Mr. Bessent in February, at a time when it was widely known that he was interested in the Treasury post, and proposed $30,000 to $40,000 a month to “promote” Mr. Bessent around Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s estate in Florida.Mr. Bessent declined. He also did not partake in another effort by Mr. Epshteyn, described in the report, to get him to invest in a three-on-three basketball league, but played along with him to avoid offending such a seemingly powerful figure in Mr. Trump’s world.Mr. Bessent then called Mr. Epshteyn on Nov. 14 to see whether he was criticizing Mr. Bessent to people around Mr. Trump, the review said. Mr. Epshteyn told Mr. Bessent that it was “too late” to hire him and that he was “Boris Epshteyn,” with an expletive between the two names. He then suggested the hiring was for consulting.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 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      There Is No Excuse for the Bullying of Sarah McBride

      by

      It’s hard to imagine how terrifying it must be to be a trans person, or the parent of one, in America right now.Donald Trump and his party, having triumphed in an election in which they demonized trans people, seem hellbent on driving them out of public life. Democrats, some of whom blame the party for staking out positions on trans issues that they couldn’t publicly defend, are shellshocked and confused. Democratic leaders have been far too quiet as congressional Republicans, giddy and vengeful in victory, seek to humiliate their new colleague, Representative-elect Sarah McBride, a Democrat from Delaware, by barring her and other trans people from using the appropriate single-sex bathrooms in the Capitol.I say this as someone who has been called a TERF, a contemptuous acronym that stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist, more times than I can count. For a decade now, I’ve been trying to balance a belief in the rights of trans people with my skepticism of some trans activist positions. I’ve written with a degree of sympathy about feminists who’ve been ostracized for wanting to maintain women’s-only spaces. I believe that the science behind youth gender medicine is unsettled, and I dislike jargon like “sex assigned at birth” that tries to mystify or elide the reality of biological sex. (Except for rare exceptions, doctors don’t “assign” sex, they identify it.) I care very little about sports, but it seems dishonest to deny that male puberty tends to confer advantages on trans women athletes.Occasionally, I receive angry or plaintive messages from trans people accusing me of helping America down a slippery slope that has brought us to our lamentable present, when discrimination against trans people has been normalized to a degree that recently seemed unthinkable. During Trump’s first presidential campaign, he said his trans supporter Caitlyn Jenner was welcome to use whatever bathroom she wanted at Trump Tower. At the time, North Carolina’s bathroom bill, which resulted in economically painful boycotts of the state, was widely seen as a self-inflicted wound.Eight years later, anti-trans rhetoric was a central part of the Trump campaign; between Oct. 7 and Oct. 20, more than 41 percent of pro-Trump ads promoted anti-trans messages. Over a dozen states now have laws restricting trans people’s access to single-sex bathrooms. In the face of this onslaught against a tiny and vulnerable group of people, there’s pressure on liberals to keep any qualms we might have about elements of progressive gender ideology to ourselves.That’s one reason, despite my interest in sex and gender, I haven’t written about these debates as much as I otherwise might have. But I’m increasingly convinced that this widespread reticence hasn’t served anyone very well. The basic right of trans people to live in safety and dignity, free from discrimination, should be uncontested. But evolving ideas about sex and gender create new complexities and conflicts, and when progressives refuse to talk about them forthrightly, instead defaulting to clichés like “trans women are women,” people can feel lied to and become radicalized.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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      End of Trump Cases Leaves Limits on Presidential Criminality Unclear

      by

      Donald J. Trump is set to regain office without clarity on the scope of presidential immunity and with a lingering cloud over whether outside special counsels can investigate high-level wrongdoing.The end of the two federal criminal cases against President-elect Donald J. Trump on Monday left momentous, unsettled questions about constraints on criminal wrongdoing by presidents, from the scope of presidential immunity to whether the Justice Department may continue to appoint outside special counsels to investigate high-level wrongdoing.Both cases against Mr. Trump — for his attempt to overturn the 2020 election and his later hoarding of classified government documents and obstruction of efforts to retrieve them — were short-circuited by the fact that he won the 2024 election before they could be definitively resolved.Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought both cases against Mr. Trump, asked courts on Monday to shut them down. The prosecutor cited the Justice Department’s longstanding view that the Constitution implicitly grants temporary immunity to sitting presidents, lest any prosecution distract them from their official duties.The result is not just that Mr. Trump appears set to escape any criminal accountability for his actions. (Mr. Smith left the door open to, in theory, refiling the charges after Mr. Trump leaves office, but the statute of limitations is likely to have run by then.) It also means that two open constitutional questions the cases have raised appear likely to go without definitive answers as Mr. Trump takes office.One is the extent of the protection from prosecution offered to former presidents by the Supreme Court’s ruling this summer establishing that they have a type of broad but not fully defined immunity for official acts taken while in office.The other is whether, when a president is suspected of committing crimes, the Justice Department can avoid conflicts of interest by bringing in an outside prosecutor to lead a semi-independent investigation into the matter.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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Washington Curtails Intel’s Chip Grant After Company Stumbles

      by

      The Biden administration is reducing its award to the chip maker, partly to account for a multibillion-dollar military contract.The Biden administration plans to reduce Intel’s preliminary $8.5 billion federal CHIPS grant, a move that follows the California-based company’s investment delays and broader business struggles.Intel, the biggest recipient of money under the CHIPS Act, will see its funding drop to less than $8 billion from the $8.5 billion that was announced earlier this year, four people familiar with the grant said. They all spoke on the condition of anonymity because the final contract had not yet been signed. The change in terms takes into account a $3 billion contract that Intel has been offered to produce chips for the U.S. military, two of these people said.The government’s decision to reduce the size of the grant follows Intel’s move to delay some of its planned investments in chip facilities in Ohio. The company now plans to finish that project by the end of the decade instead of 2025. The chip maker has been under pressure to reduce costs after posting its biggest quarterly loss in the company’s 56-year history.The move by the Biden administration also takes into account Intel’s technology road map and customer demand. Intel has been working to improve its technological capacity to catch up to rivals like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, but it has struggled to convince customers that it can match TSMC’s technology.Intel’s troubles have been a blow to the Biden administration’s plans to rev up domestic chip manufacturing. In March, President Biden traveled to Arizona to announce Intel’s multibillion-dollar award and said the company’s manufacturing investments would transform the semiconductor industry. Intel’s investment was at the forefront of the administration’s ambition to return chip manufacturing to the United States from Asia. The CHIPS Act, a bipartisan bill passed in 2022, provided $39 billion in funding to subsidize the construction of facilities to help the United States reduce its reliance on foreign production of the tiny, critical electronics that power everything from iPads to dishwashers.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