United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Mexico to Give U.S. More Water From Their Shared Rivers

      by

      A joint agreement appeared to avert a threat by President Trump of tariffs and sanctions in a long-running dispute over water rights in the border region.Mexico has agreed to send water to the United States and temporarily channel more water to the country from their shared rivers, a concession that appeared to defuse a diplomatic crisis sparked by yearslong shortages that left Mexico behind on its treaty-bound contribution of water from the borderlands.Earlier this month, President Trump threatened additional tariffs and other sanctions against Mexico over the water debt, amounting to about 420 billion gallons. In a social media post, Mr. Trump accused Mexico of “stealing” water from Texas farmers by not meeting its obligations under a 1944 treaty that mediates the distribution of water from three rivers the two countries share: the Rio Grande, the Colorado and the Tijuana. In an agreement announced jointly by Mexico and the United States on Monday, Mexico will immediately transfer some of its water reserves and will give the country a larger share of the flow of water from the Rio Grande through October.The concession from Mexico averted the threat of more punishing tariffs and diplomatic enmity with the United States amid the rollout of Mr. Trump’s new trade policies. But fulfilling the agreement is expected to significantly strain Mexico’s farmlands and could revive civil unrest triggered by previous water payments to the United States. Much of the Mexican borderlands are enduring extreme drought conditions, according to Mexico’s meteorological agency and water commission, and Mexico’s water reserves are at historic lows.Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, has taken a conciliatory approach in negotiations with the Trump administration. Hours after Mr. Trump’s threat of tariffs over the water dispute earlier this month, Ms. Sheinbaum acknowledged that her country had fallen short of its treaty commitments, citing the extreme drought and saying that Mexico had been complying “to the extent of water availability.”In a statement on Monday, the State Department lauded Ms. Sheinbaum “for her personal involvement” in negotiating the agreement, and spoke of “water scarcity affecting communities on both sides of the border.” A statement from the Mexican foreign ministry on the agreement noted that the United States had agreed not to seek a renegotiation of the 1944 water treaty.Longstanding tensions over water have simmered between Mexico and the United States. In 2020, those tensions exploded into violence in Mexico, as farmers rioted and seized control of a dam in the border region in an effort to shut off water deliveries to the United States.Rising temperatures and drought have made the water from rivers Mexico and the United States share all the more valuable.According to data provided by the International Boundary and Water Commission, which mediates water disputes between the two countries, Mexico has fallen well short of its treaty commitments on water delivery in the last five years. Between October 2020 and October 2024, Mexico provided just over 400,000 acre-feet of water, far less than the roughly 1.4 million acre-feet called for under treaty stipulations. The debt has only grown since.Emiliano Rodríguez Mega More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      What to Know About the 3 U.S. Citizen Children Removed to Honduras

      by

      Lawyers say the families wanted the children to remain in the United States. The Trump administration says the mothers requested the children’s removal. The dispute has constitutional stakes.The removal of three children with U.S. citizenship with their families to Honduras last week has prompted alarm that President Trump’s strict immigration enforcement may have crossed “illegal and unconstitutional” lines, as a federal judge in one of the cases put it.Lawyers for the two families involved said the mothers were not given an option to leave their children in the United States before they were deported. But Mr. Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, said the mothers requested the children’s removal.The cases have added to growing concerns that the Trump administration may be violating the Constitution in its increasingly stringent crackdown on immigration, including removing U.S. citizens, a desire that Mr. Trump has expressed in the past but that legal experts say runs against longstanding prohibitions.Here is a look at the cases and what is at stake.What happened?Three children who are U.S. citizens were removed to Honduras last week as part of the deportation of other members of their families.Two of the children, ages 4 and 7, belong to one Honduran family. The mother of those children had an outstanding deportation order and had shown up to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement check-in on Thursday, said Gracie Willis, the raids response coordinator with the National Immigration Project, who is helping the family’s immigration lawyer with the case.The 4-year-old, Ms. Willis said, has cancer. The mother had shown up to the check-in with a lawyer but was quickly thrust into the deportation process. Her lawyer had no meaningful chance to try to stop the deportation in court, Ms. Willis 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

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      ‘60 Minutes’ Rebukes Paramount On-Air Over Executive Producer’s Exit

      by

      The show’s top producer abruptly said last week he was quitting. “Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways,” the correspondent Scott Pelley told viewers.In an extraordinary on-air rebuke, one of the top journalists at “60 Minutes” directly criticized the program’s parent company in the final moments of its Sunday night CBS telecast, its first episode since the program’s executive producer, Bill Owens, announced his intention to resign.“Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways,” the correspondent, Scott Pelley, told viewers. “None of our stories has been blocked, but Bill felt he lost the independence that honest journalism requires.”A spokesman for Paramount had no immediate comment, and has previously declined to comment on Mr. Owens’s departure.Mr. Owens stunned the show’s staff on Tuesday when he said he would leave the highest-rated program in television news over disagreements with Paramount, CBS’s corporate parent, saying, “It’s clear the company is done with me.”Mr. Owens’s comments were widely reported in the press last week. The show’s decision to repeat those grievances on-air may have exposed viewers to the serious tensions between “60 Minutes” and its corporate overseers for the first time.Shari Redstone, the controlling shareholder of Paramount, has been intent on securing approval from the Trump administration for a multibillion-dollar sale of her media company to a studio run by the son of Larry Ellison, the tech billionaire.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

      Rough Night for Republican at Town Hall in N.Y. Swing District

      by

      Representative Mike Lawler faced shouts, groans and mockery at a high school auditorium in Rockland County.No one was expecting a love fest when Representative Mike Lawler, Republican of New York, faced constituents in his suburban swing district on Sunday night. Still, even he seemed surprised by the night’s first clash — over the Pledge of Allegiance.“Please tell me you’re not objecting to the Pledge of Allegiance,” Mr. Lawler asked incredulously after some members of the audience inside a high school auditorium audibly groaned when he suggested reciting it.They acquiesced, and several hundred attendees labored to their feet to say the pledge, but not without indicating why they believed its words had come to ring hollow.“Authoritarian!” one man yelled, an apparent reference to President Trump.“Support the Constitution!” bellowed another.So it went for nearly two hours as Mr. Lawler, one of the House’s most vulnerable Republicans and a potential candidate for governor of New York, faced a torrent of criticism from liberal constituents over almost everything, from Republicans’ multitrillion-dollar tax cut plan to how brightly the room was lit.It was a scene that has repeated itself across the country over the past two weeks for the small group of Republicans who have defied party leaders’ advice and convened feedback sessions with the people they represent, many of them anxious, angry and primed to vent over a president who they believe is acting with unchecked power.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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Military Says Its Air Campaign Has Hit More Than 800 Targets in Yemen

      by

      President Trump ordered a start to the strikes against the Houthis on March 15. Congressional officials say the campaign has cost well over $1 billion.American forces have hit more than 800 targets in Yemen during an ongoing air campaign that began six weeks ago against the Houthi militia, the U.S. military said on Sunday.The military said the targets of the strikes, called Operation Rough Rider, included “multiple command-and-control facilities, air defense systems, advanced weapons manufacturing facilities and advanced weapons storage locations.”Among the arms and equipment in stockpiles struck by the Americans were antiship ballistic and cruise missiles and drones, the types of weapons that the Houthis have used against ships in the Red Sea, the military said. The details were outlined in an announcement issued by U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations and forces in the Middle East.Congressional officials say the campaign has cost well over $1 billion so far, based on closed-door briefings Pentagon officials gave to Congress early this month, just three weeks into the campaign. The New York Times reported in early April on the rapid rate of munitions used in the campaign, a rate that has caused concern among some strategic planners in the U.S. military.The Houthis have been firing projectiles and launching drones at commercial and military ships in the Red Sea as a show of solidarity with the residents of Gaza and with Hamas, the militant group that controls it. They have been under assault by Israel since Hamas carried out a deadly strike in southern Israel in October 2023 and took hostages.On March 15, President Trump ordered the U.S. military to begin a continual air campaign against the Houthis, after the Biden administration carried out some strikes. Until Sunday, the U.S. military had not publicly disclosed the number of targets struck in Operation Rough Rider.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Donald Trump Is Selling the White House to the Highest Bidder

      by

      <!–> Opinion –>Trump’sBiggestBeneficiary:Himself<!–> –><!–> [!–> <!–> [!–> <!–> [!–> <!–> –><!–> [!–><!–> –> <!–> –><!–> ]–> Opinion Guest Essay Trump’s Biggest Beneficiary: Himself No presidential administration is completely free from questionable ethics practices, but Donald Trump has pushed us to a new low. He has accomplished that by breaking every norm of good government, often […] More

    • 75 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Fear Factor and America’s Future

      by

      More from our inbox:Depression and AgingPaul Revere’s Legacy Robert Gumpert/ReduxTo the Editor:“I Have Never Been More Afraid for My Country’s Future,” by Thomas L. Friedman (column, April 17), is an alarm we all need to hear. His main point couldn’t be clearer: The things that have made America strong — our rule of law, our global partnerships and our ability to lead in innovation — are being systematically undermined by a leader more focused on revenge than building a future.While other countries, like China, are investing in clean energy, advanced technology and long-term strategy, we’re clinging to the past and isolating ourselves in the process. If we don’t start paying attention, demanding accountability and thinking beyond the next news cycle, we will wake up in a country that’s poorer, more divided and left behind.We ignore Mr. Friedman’s warning at our own peril.Robert StewartChantilly, Va.To the Editor:Like Thomas L. Friedman, I have never been more afraid for my country’s future. But not because of the mistaken economic policies he focuses upon, dangerous as those may be. By far the most dangerous and repugnant reality of President Trump’s second term is his ongoing violation of constitutional guardrails and democratic norms so that he can assume a level of power never intended for any president.This threat is not simply an undesirable context for potentially fatal economic actions, as Mr. Friedman indicates. Rather, those guardrails are more fundamental to a strong economic future than any particular policy action. Even more important, they are absolutely essential to the decent society that economic activity and government are supposed to promote.Robert WardAlbany, N.Y.To the Editor:Thomas L. Friedman’s column captures, with characteristic urgency and clarity, the Trump administration’s surrealism and strategic incoherence.His critique of President Trump’s nostalgia-driven economic nationalism — especially the fetishization of coal at the expense of clean technology innovation — is timely and damning. Few writers can as effectively tie in the everyday absurdities of this administration to their long-term global implications.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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Harvard May Not Be the Hero We Want, but It Is the Hero We Need

      by

      Like many of its conservative alumni, I have a complicated relationship with Harvard.I grew up in a small town in Kentucky, where I went to public school. I attended college at a small Christian university in Nashville. I never had a thought that I could attend Harvard Law School. But friends urged me to try.When I got in, it was so shocking that it felt miraculous. I knew it would change my life — and it did. It gave me some of my closest friends, it gave me career opportunities I couldn’t previously fathom, and it kindled in me a love for constitutional law.At the same time, the school had profound problems. The student culture was remarkably intolerant and contentious. This was the height of early 1990s political correctness, and I was sometimes shouted down by angry classmates.In 1993, GQ published a long report from the law school called “Beirut on the Charles,” and it described a place that “pitted faculty members against faculty members, faculty members against students” and where students were “waging holy war on one another.”The more things changed, the more they stayed the same. In the 30 years since my graduation, the school has continued to change lives, and it has maintained one of the least tolerant cultures in American higher education.For the second year in a row, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Expression (where I served as president a number of years ago) has ranked Harvard last in the country in its annual free speech rankings. The environment, FIRE determined, was “abysmal.”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