United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Pride and Dread in Harvard Yard as Trump Wars With the University

      by

      Students on Thursday protested the president’s attacks on Harvard, but at town hall meetings, defiance mixed with uncertainty as faculty members examined the toll of the White House’s actions.For four days, Harvard University’s name had been in the headlines, heroic to some, villainous to others — after the nation’s oldest institution of higher learning stood up and said no to the demands of President Trump, and then suffered his wrath.But when leaders of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health convened a town hall meeting on Thursday morning, resistance or acquiescence was not the question of the moment, nor was defiance the prevailing mood. The school’s leaders laid out their dire financial circumstances to a stunned and overwhelmed audience of about 1,000 students and faculty and staff members, near the end of a week of unprecedented federal aggression.They had no good news to share.“It’s like you’re hunkering down for the beginning of a war, where you think you’re going to be losing a lot of your freedoms and a lot of your resources,” said Steve Gortmaker, director of the school’s Prevention Research Center on Nutrition and Physical Activity, who attended the meeting.With Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, standing toe-to-toe with the president of the United States, faculty members and students on the Cambridge campus on Thursday said they were struggling to make sense of the rapid escalation this week of Mr. Trump’s campaign to bend the university to his will. After Mr. Garber rejected Mr. Trump’s demands, the White House moved swiftly to inflict punishment, freezing $2.2 billion in grants to Harvard on Monday, suggesting on Wednesday it would revoke Harvard’s tax exemption, and then threatening to block the university from enrolling international students.In Harvard Yard, students still hurried to class; tourists still lined up under flowering trees to take photos of a statue of John Harvard. But behind the scenes, professors and researchers acknowledged a rising tide of angst, anger and uncertainty, their pride in the university’s stand against federal intervention mingling with their dread of the painful consequences.Since Harvard University leadership stood up to the Trump administration, many were rushing to sort out what the loss of funding would really mean below the surface.Cody O’Loughlin for The New York TimesWe 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 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      White House Eyes Overhaul of Federal Housing Aid to the Poor

      by

      The White House is considering deep cuts to federal housing programs, including a sweeping overhaul of aid to low-income families, in a reconfiguration that could jeopardize millions of Americans’ continued access to rental assistance funds.The potential changes primarily concern federal housing vouchers, including those more commonly known as Section 8. The aid generally helps the poorest tenants cover the monthly costs of apartments, town homes and single-family residences.Administration officials recently discussed cutting or canceling out the vouchers and other rental assistance programs and potentially replacing them with a more limited system of housing grants, perhaps sent to states, according to three people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the confidential discussions. The overhaul would be included in President Trump’s new budget, which is expected to be sent to Capitol Hill in the coming weeks.The exact design and cost of the retooled program is unclear, and any such change is likely to require approval from Congress, as White House budgets on their own do not carry the force of law.But people familiar with the administration’s thinking said the overhaul under discussion would most likely amount to more than just a technical change, resulting in fewer federal dollars for low-income families on top of additional cuts planned for the rest of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.Federal voucher programs currently provide assistance to about 2.3 million low-income families, according to the government’s estimates, who enroll through their local public-housing authorities. The aid is part of a broader universe of rental assistance programs that are set to exceed $54 billion this fiscal year. But the annual demand for these subsidies is far greater than the available funds, creating a sizable wait list as rents are rising nationally.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 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Names Interim U.S. Attorney for Manhattan, Bypassing Schumer

      by

      Senator Chuck Schumer had said he would block the permanent appointment of Jay Clayton, the president’s choice to head one of the nation’s most prestigious prosecutor’s offices.President Trump has appointed Jay Clayton, who served as the top Wall Street enforcer during Mr. Trump’s first term, to be the interim U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, the president said in a social media post on Wednesday.The action came after Senator Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat and minority leader, said he would block Mr. Trump’s nomination of Mr. Clayton, 58, for the U.S. attorney post, using a prerogative given to home-state senators. Mr. Schumer made his move after weeks in which some liberal Democrats had made scathing attacks on him for doing too little to resist Mr. Trump.Mr. Trump said in his Truth Social post that he would continue to pursue Mr. Clayton’s Senate confirmation. Mr. Clayton, a lawyer at the firm Sullivan & Cromwell who has never been a prosecutor, served as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission from 2017 to 2020.“During my first term, Jay served with great distinction as the chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and earned the respect of everyone,” Mr. Trump said in the post.The Southern District, which is based in Manhattan, has long been considered one of the most prestigious federal prosecutor’s offices in the country. It is known for handling high-profile cases involving public corruption, national security, international terrorism, fraud on Wall Street and other white-collar crime and sex trafficking.The district, which includes Manhattan, the Bronx and several upstate counties, has long been referred to jokingly as the Sovereign District, a nod to its prized past independence. Its alumni have included former U.S. attorneys general, F.B.I. directors and countless judges.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 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Mother of Woman Killed by Immigrant Speaks at White House Briefing

      by

      Just hours after a federal judge threatened a contempt-of-court investigation over the Trump administration’s deportation flights, the White House sought to freeze the legal debate by reminding Americans of a heartbreaking case of a mother killed by an unauthorized immigrant.White House officials called a special briefing on Wednesday in the press room to bring Patty Morin, the mother of Rachel Morin, who was killed while jogging on a trail in Maryland in 2023, to the podium. She recounted in detail how her daughter, a 37-year-old mother of five, was seized, raped and bashed in the head with rocks and ultimately strangled. Members of her family also appeared at the Republican National Convention last July.An immigrant from El Salvador, Victor Martinez-Hernandez, was convicted in the case this week.The story was a tragic one, and it has fueled Mr. Trump’s arguments about dangers posed by migrants and a debate about capital punishment. Nonetheless, the invitation of Ms. Morin seemed a somewhat transparent effort to suspend the arguments about whether the administration could lawfully send migrants to El Salvador with no due process, and whether it can defy the orders of district judges who order the flights halted.Statistics show that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes on American soil than American citizens, and Mr. Trump’s claims of a wave of violent crime committed by immigrants have not been supported by police or court data. But it is a popular talking point among Mr. Trump’s base of supporters, and he often brought out family members of victims during his presidential campaign.By conflating different incidents, the Trump administration appeared to be diverting the conversation from whether his administration could defy the courts, or deny due process to those arrested and shipped out of the country to a prison the United States is paying for.Before Ms. Morin spoke, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, criticized Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, for traveling to El Salvador to press for the return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was seized and sent to a notorious terrorist prison in El Salvador in what the government admitted was an “administrative error.”Ms. Leavitt accused him again of being a member of the MS-13 gang, a terrorist, and, in a new claim, a perpetrator of spousal abuse. She called him a “woman beater” and waved a court filing, one that sought an order of protection against him.After the briefing, Mr. Abrego Garcia’s wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, acknowledged that she had filed the papers. But she said she had not pressed the case.“Things did not escalate, and I decided not to follow through with the civil court process,” she said. “We were able to work through this situation privately as a family.”Chris Cameron More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Administration Halts Building of Giant Wind Farm Off N.Y. Coast

      by

      Gov. Kathy Hochul quickly responded that she would “fight this decision every step of the way.”Just as construction was starting on a massive wind farm off the coast of Long Island, the Trump administration ordered an immediate halt on Wednesday that could spell a serious setback for hopes of powering New York City with offshore wind.Doug Burgum, the interior secretary, called for the cessation of “all construction activities” on the Empire Wind project, which was designed to provide enough electricity to power about 500,000 homes in New York.On the first day of his new term in office, President Trump signed an executive order that limited the approval of offshore wind farms. But Empire Wind had already received all of the permits it needed to get underway.In a social media post on Wednesday, Mr. Burgum said the halt would allow for “further review of information that suggests the Biden administration rushed through its approval without sufficient analysis.”New York’s governor, Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, quickly responded that she would “fight this decision every step of the way.” She called the secretary’s move a “federal overreach” that she would not allow to stand.The order came two weeks after Representative Chris Smith, a Republican from New Jersey, asked Mr. Burgum in a letter to “do everything in your power” to stop what he called an “underhanded rush” to build the wind farm. Another Republican representative from New Jersey, Jeff Van Drew, has pressed Mr. Trump to put a stop to other wind farms that were planned in the Atlantic Ocean to provide renewable power to New Jersey.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

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Senator Chris Van Hollen Heads to El Salvador to Check on Deported Immigrant

      by

      Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, is on his way to El Salvador on Wednesday to press for the release of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant and Maryland resident who was mistakenly deported by the Trump administration and remains imprisoned in his native country despite a federal court order calling for his return to the United States.Mr. Abrego Garcia was removed from the United States last month in what immigration officials have since acknowledged was an error. Although the Supreme Court has instructed the government to facilitate his return, both U.S. and Salvadoran authorities have so far refused to comply.Mr. Van Hollen said he hoped to visit Mr. Abrego Garcia at the maximum security prison where he is being held, known as CECOT, about an hour outside the country’s capital. The senator also said he hoped to talk to Salvadoran officials about securing Mr. Abrego Garcia’s release.“Following his abduction and unlawful deportation, U.S. federal courts have ordered the safe return of my constituent Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States,” Mr. Van Hollen said in a statement before his departure. “It should be a priority of the U.S. government to secure his safe release.”The trip comes shortly after President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador traveled to Washington, D.C., this week for a meeting with Mr. Trump. Mr. Van Hollen had requested a meeting with Mr. Bukele during the visit, but received no response.Mr. Trump and Mr. Bukele had appeared side-by-side in the Oval Office, with Mr. Bukele saying he had no intention of releasing Mr. Abrego Garcia and Mr. Trump saying he was powerless to seek his return.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Law Firms Made Deals With Trump. Now He Wants More From Them.

      by

      To avoid retribution, big firms agreed to provide free legal services for uncontroversial causes. To the White House, that could mean negotiating trade deals — or even defending the president and his allies.When some of the nation’s biggest law firms agreed to deals with President Trump, the terms appeared straightforward: In return for escaping the full force of his retribution campaign, the firms would do some free legal work on behalf of largely uncontroversial causes like helping veterans.Mr. Trump, it turns out, has a far more expansive view of what those firms can be called on to do.Over the last week, he has suggested that the firms will be drafted into helping him negotiate trade deals.He has mused about having them help with his goal of reviving the coal industry.And he has hinted that he sees the promises of nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services that he has extracted from the elite law firms — including Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom; and Willkie Farr & Gallagher — as a legal war chest to be used as he wishes.“Have you noticed that lots of law firms have been signing up with Trump: $100 million, another $100 million for damages that they’ve done,” Mr. Trump said at an event last week with coal miners, without specifying what he meant by damages.None of the firms have acknowledged any wrongdoing. They were targeted with punitive executive orders or implicit threats for representing or aiding Mr. Trump’s political foes or employing people he sees as having used the legal system to come after him.The deals have been widely criticized, as they are seen by many in the legal community as unconstitutional and undemocratic. Four firms whom Mr. Trump leveled executive orders against have fought them in court, all quickly receiving rulings from federal judges who temporarily halted them.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

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      What to Know as Trump Freezes Federal Funds for Harvard and Other Universities

      by

      The showdown between the Trump administration and institutions of higher learning intensified on Tuesday, when President Trump threatened Harvard University’s tax-exempt status after the school refused to accept his administration’s demands on hiring, admissions and curriculum.His threat, and the stakes involved, highlighted not only the billions of dollars in government funding that colleges receive every year but how that practice started and what all that money goes toward.When did colleges and universities begin receiving substantial federal funds?Around the time of World War II, the U.S. government started funding universities for the purpose of aiding the war effort, funneling money toward medical research, innovation and financial aid for students.The relationship between the federal government and higher education soon became symbiotic. As the government counted on universities to produce educated and employable students, as well as breakthrough scientific research, universities came to rely on continued funding.In 1970, the government dispersed about $3.4 billion to higher education. Today, individual colleges depend on what could be billions of dollars, which mainly go toward financial aid and research. Harvard alone receives $9 billion.What does the government money fund, and what kinds of programs will lose out if it is cut?The funding freezes have caused work stoppages, cut contracts, imperiled medical research and left students in limbo. Reductions can also affect hospitals that are affiliated with universities, like the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Boston Children’s Hospital, both of which are affiliated with Harvard.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