United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Dept. Accuses Top Immigration Lawyer of Failing to Follow Orders

      by

      A senior Justice Department immigration lawyer was put on indefinite leave Saturday after questioning the Trump administration’s decision to deport a Maryland man to El Salvador — one day after representing the government in court.Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche suspended Erez Reuveni, the acting deputy director of the department’s immigration litigation division, for failing to “follow a directive from your superiors,” according to a letter sent to Mr. Reuveni and obtained by The New York Times.Mr. Reuveni — who was praised as a “top-notched” prosecutor by his superiors in an email announcing his promotion two weeks ago — is the latest career official to be suspended, demoted, transferred or fired for refusing to comply with a directive from President Trump’s appointees to take actions they deem improper or unethical.“At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States,” Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote in a statement sent to The Times on Saturday. “Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences.”Under questioning by a federal judge on Friday, Mr. Reuveni conceded that the deportation last month of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who had a court order allowing him to stay in the United States, should never have taken place. Mr. Reuveni also said he had been frustrated when the case landed on his desk.Mr. Reuveni, a respected 15-year veteran of the immigration division, asked the judge for 24 hours to persuade his “client,” the Trump administration, to begin the process of retrieving and repatriating Mr. Abrego Garcia.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

      Trump Family’s Cash Registers Ring as Financial Meltdown Plays Out

      by

      The party was on at a Saudi-backed LIV Golf tournament at the president’s Doral resort in Florida and a fund-raiser at Mar-a-Lago, even as markets tumbled.The financial market meltdown was underway when President Trump boarded Air Force One on his way to Florida on Thursday for a doubleheader of sorts: a Saudi-backed golf tournament at his family’s Miami resort and a weekend of fund-raisers attracting hundreds of donors to his Palm Beach club.It was a fresh reminder that in his second term, Mr. Trump has continued to find ways to drive business to his family-owned real-estate ventures, a practice he has sustained even when his work in Washington has caused worldwide financial turmoil.The Trump family monetization weekend started Thursday night, as crowds began to form at both the Trump National Doral resort near Miami International Airport, and separately at his Mar-a-Lago resort 70 miles up the coast.Mr. Trump landed on the edge of one of the golf courses in a military helicopter — just in time for a dinner at Doral. The next day, LIV Golf, the breakaway professional league backed by Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, was scheduled to hold a tournament at the course for the fourth time.On Thursday at Mar-a-Lago, hundreds of guests gathered for the American Patriots Gala, a conservative fund-raiser that featured Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and President Javier Milei of Argentina, who told his supporters back home that he was hoping to catch up with Mr. Trump while there, seemingly unaware that Mr. Trump was double-booked at two of his family properties that night.And that was just the weekend’s lead-up.Mr. Trump ordered a new set of global tariffs on Wednesday from the White House using his trademark Sharpie pen, a version of which is on sale at Mar-a-Lago for $3.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

      Former Aides to Ken Paxton Win $6.6 Million in Whistle-Blower Case

      by

      A judge found that four whistle-blowers who accused Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, of corruption and reported him to the F.B.I. were unjustly fired.A judge awarded a total of $6.6 million to four former high-level aides to Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, who claimed that they were unduly fired after reporting him to federal investigators and accusing him of corruption in 2020.The plaintiffs — Blake Brickman, Mark Penley, David Maxwell and Ryan Vassar — proved that the attorney general’s office violated the state’s whistle-blower act, Judge Catherine Mauzy of a district court in Travis County ruled on Friday.Each plaintiff was awarded between $1 million and more than $2 million for lost wages, emotional pain, legal fees and other costs associated with the trial.“The Court finds that Plaintiffs have proved liability, damages, and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees by a preponderance of the evidence,” Judge Mauzy wrote in her ruling.Judge Mauzy also noted that Mr. Paxton never disputed any issue or fact in the case, opting not to contest his office’s liability. Mr. Paxton did not testify.Tom Nesbitt, a lawyer for Mr. Brickman, celebrated the decision.“Yesterday’s judgment is the natural and intended consequence of Ken Paxton’s choice to surrender rather than fight the whistle-blowers’ claims in court,” he said in a statement on Saturday.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

      Prosectors on George Santos Case Seek 7-Year Sentence

      by

      The disgraced former congressman is set to be sentenced on April 25. His lawyers asked for a penalty of two years, the minimum allowed.Federal prosecutors on Friday asked for a prison sentence of more than seven years for George Santos, the former Republican congressman from New York whose career unraveled after he told a series of lies, and who later pleaded guilty to wire fraud and identity theft.Prosecutors for the Eastern District of New York asked in a court filing for a sentence of 87 months to reflect the “seriousness of his unparalleled crimes.”Mr. Santos, 36, is set to be sentenced on April 25, bringing to an end a criminal case that began in 2023. Prosecutors charged him with 23 felony counts while he was still a representative in Congress.A provocateur who insisted on his innocence even as his serial falsehoods came to light, Mr. Santos pleaded guilty last August to two of the counts and admitted to an array of other frauds. Guidelines call for a sentence of roughly six to seven years in prison, though a judge will make the final decision later this month.In his drive to seek higher office, the prosecutors’ filing said, Mr. Santos fabricated his past and engaged in deceitful schemes, including inflating his fund-raising numbers and stealing from donors. “He lied to his campaign staff, his supporters, his putative employer and congressional colleagues, and the American public,” the prosecutors wrote.“Santos’s conduct has made a mockery of our election system,” they added.Lawyers for Mr. Santos, Robert M. Fantone and Joseph W. Murray, did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Saturday morning. In a separate filing on Friday, they asked for a sentence of two years, the minimum allowed for the crimes involved, followed by probation. Mr. Santos had acknowledged the gravity of his crimes, the filing said, and agreed to pay nearly $374,000 in restitution.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

    • 50 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      A Tariffs Cheat Sheet

      by

      An escalating global trade war has tanked markets and plunged corporate America into chaos. DealBook asked economists, investors and other experts to help make sense of what’s next.It was much worse than expected. President Trump’s attempt to reverse the rules of global trade through sweeping tariffs against dozens of nations, including major partners like the European Union, Japan and China, has caused a meltdown in global markets and sent corporate boardrooms scrambling.Today, 10 percent tariffs go into effect on all of America’s trading partners except Canada and Mexico. Additional, “reciprocal” tariffs will go into effect on dozens of other nations on Wednesday. China faces the toughest levies — at least 54 percent — and it hit back with its own toll on U.S. goods yesterday. Expect a response from the E.U. next week.Trump has argued that the economic pain caused by the tariffs will be short term and ultimately justified by a boom in the U.S. economy, but news of the measures hit investors hard. The benchmark S&P 500 closed yesterday near bear market territory, with analysts warning of an increased risk of recession.Jerome Powell, the head of the U.S. Federal Reserve, offered a somewhat glum outlook yesterday on the prospects for growth and warned of higher prices that he acknowledged could be more than temporary.There’s a lot going on. DealBook asked economists, investment researchers and other experts to help make sense of what’s next.How have the new tariffs changed the risk of a recession?We asked: Jason Furman, a professor of economics at Harvard and former economic adviser to President Barack Obama.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 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The Theories Behind the Trump Shock

      by

      There are two related theories of what Donald Trump’s dramatic revision of the global trade system is intended to accomplish.First, the goal is to revitalize American manufacturing, our capacity to build at home and export to the world. The global free trade system that took shape in the late 20th century served the American empire and American G.D.P. but at the expense of America’s earlier role as a manufacturing powerhouse — and because manufacturing jobs were such an important source of blue-collar male employment, at the expense of the working-class social fabric.Meanwhile, over time, our manufacturing base didn’t just move overseas, it moved into the territory of our greatest rival, the People’s Republic of China. So rebuilding industry in America has two potential benefits even if it sacrifices some of the efficiencies offered by global trade. Factory jobs fill a particular socioeconomic niche that’s been filled instead by drugs, decline, despair. And having a real manufacturing base is essential if we’re going to be locked into great power competition for decades to come.Under this theory, though, it would seem like tariffs would be most effectively deployed against China, countries in China’s immediate economic orbit, and developing countries that are natural zones for outsourcing. But the Trump administration has deployed them generally, against peer economies and allies. The policy seems much more sweeping than the goal, the potential damage to both growth and basic international comity too large to justify the upside.Which is where the second argument comes in — that this policy is about fiscal deficits, not just trade deficits and manufacturing. The same global system that made America a net importer also enabled us to borrow immense sums, but we are reaching the point where that borrowing cannot be sustained, where interest rates on the debt will crush our policymaking capacities even if there isn’t an overall flight from the dollar.Here tariffs serve several purposes. Most straightforwardly they generate revenue without striking the kind of grand bargain on Medicare and taxes that the two parties are just too polarized to make. (The only way a Republican president can preside over tax increases is to implement them unilaterally while insisting that they will fall mostly on foreigners.)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 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Tariffs: How the Math Affects Over 100 Countries

      by

      <!–> [–><!–>President Trump's new tariffs on more than 100 countries used the same simple formula to calculate the rate for each of them.–><!–> –><!–> [–><!–>The formula’s central value is the trade deficit, the difference between imports and exports between each country and the United States, for the year 2024.–><!–> –> <!–> –><!–> [–><!–> –> <!–> […] More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Permanently Bars N.I.H. From Limiting Medical Research Funding

      by

      A federal judge permanently barred the Trump administration on Friday from limiting funding from the National Institutes of Health that supports research at universities and academic medical centers, restoring billions of dollars in grant money but setting up an almost certain appeal.The ruling by Judge Angel Kelley, of the Federal District Court in Massachusetts, made an earlier temporary order by her permanent and was one of the first final decisions in the barrage of lawsuits against the Trump administration. But it came about in an unusual way: The government asked the court to enter that very verdict earlier on Friday so it could move ahead with an appeal.The decision nonetheless was an initial win for a diverse assortment of institutions that conduct medical research. After the Trump administration announced the policy change in February, scores of research hospitals and universities issued dire warnings that the proposal threatened to kneecap American scientific prowess and innovation, estimating that the change could force those institutions to collectively cover a nearly $4 billion shortfall.Under the Trump administration’s plan, the National Institutes of Health could cap the funding it provides to cover the “indirect costs” of research — for things like maintenance of buildings, utilities and support staff — at 15 percent in the grants it hands out. Historically, when the agency awarded grants, it could allocate close to 50 percent in some cases to cover the indirect costs associated with a given study.The Trump administration said it had conceived of the policy as a way of freeing up more federal dollars to pay for research directly — covering scientists’ salaries or buying necessary equipment — as opposed to the many tangential costs that hospitals and laboratories incur in maintaining their facilities and other overhead expenses.But critics described that reasoning as disingenuous, as the changes the administration had proposed would paradoxically force institutions to cover the bill, and most likely shed staff and scale down research projects in the 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