United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Administration Deals With Signal Group Chat Leak Fallout: What to Know

      by

      The Trump administration is dealing with the fallout of an extraordinary leak of internal national security deliberations, disclosed in an encrypted group chat that mistakenly included a journalist from The Atlantic.In the group message among cabinet officials and senior White House staff, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth disclosed war plans two hours before U.S. troops launched attacks against the Houthi militia in Yemen. Michael Waltz, the national security adviser, inadvertently added Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic, to the group chat on Signal, a commercial messaging app.Here’s the latest.What has the White House said?President Trump told NBC News on Tuesday that the leak was “the only glitch in two months, and it turned out not to be a serious one.”Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, posted on social media that “no ‘war plans’ were discussed” and “no classified material was sent to the thread.” But Mr. Goldberg wrote that he had not published some of the messages in the thread because he said they contained sensitive information.Mr. Goldberg’s report also raised concerns about administration officials using Signal, a nonsecure messaging platform, and setting the messages to automatically delete. Ms. Leavitt pushed back against those concerns.“The White House Counsel’s Office has provided guidance on a number of different platforms for President Trump’s top officials to communicate as safely and efficiently as possible,” she wrote.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 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Frank Bisignano, Trump’s Pick to Lead Social Security Administration, Faces Senators

      by

      Frank Bisignano, the Wall Street veteran being considered to lead the Social Security Administration, will go before the Senate on Tuesday morning, where lawmakers will demand answers about his plans for an agency recently thrown into tumult.The plans being laid by the Trump administration for the typically staid agency — long viewed as a third rail of government — have prompted widespread outcry given its crucial work: It delivers billions of dollars in retirement, survivor and disability payments to 73 million people each month. The agency typically evolves slowly, aware that missteps could potentially cut off cash to people who rely on it.But in the month or so since a team from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency arrived at the agency, it has taken a series of rapid fire actions, including significant job cuts and policy changes that have rattled many advocates and employees, who fear the changes could make it difficult for vulnerable people to access benefits.Some concerned Democratic lawmakers recently sent a letter to Mr. Bisignano asking him to promise not to privatize any of the agency’s components.“We are gravely concerned about the current trajectory of the S.S.A. and more specifically, that those charged with leading it might profit off its destruction,” Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Ron Wyden of Oregon wrote.Mr. Bisignano, who described himself in an interview on CNBC as “fundamentally a DOGE person,” has spent much of his career as a fixer for major financial institutions hoping to improve their back-end processes. He said he planned to bring the same approach to Social Security.“The objective is not to touch benefits,” he said in the interview. “The objective is to figure out, there could be fraud, waste and abuse in there. And we build A.I. to find fraud, waste and abuse for a living. It’s going to be a tech story.” More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Assessment Warns Against Conflating Legal Musk Protests With Tesla Vandalism

      by

      President Trump has suggested attacks against Tesla are a coordinated effort to intimidate the billionaire Elon Musk, but an internal intelligence assessment did not support that claim and warned against conflating legal protests against Mr. Musk with vandalism to his property.The attacks on Tesla vehicles and facilities “appear to have been conducted by lone offenders, and all known incidents occurred at night, making identification and arrest of the actors difficult,” officials with the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security wrote in an intelligence bulletin dated March 21 and obtained by The New York Times.The initial assessment, shared with law enforcement agencies across the country and subject to change as investigations proceed, was based on an analysis of vandalism investigations in nine states over the past two months. It concluded that the attacks, which included firing gunshots, spraying graffiti, smashing windows and setting vehicles on fire, were “rudimentary” and not intended to injure people.The people taking these actions “may perceive these attacks as victimless property crimes,” but their “tactics can cause accidental or intentional bodily harm” to bystanders and first responders, the officials wrote in the report.While law enforcement agencies should aggressively pursue people committing those acts, they should not investigate “constitutionally protected activity” directed at Mr. Musk, who has overseen a far-reaching effort to reduce the size and function of the federal government, they added.Last week, Attorney General Pam Bondi described the Tesla attacks as “domestic terrorism.” The director of the F.B.I., Kash Patel, reiterated that assessment on Monday, saying it was investigating what he described as an increase in violent activity.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

      Trump Campaign Aide Chris LaCivita Sues The Daily Beast for Defamation

      by

      The lawsuit accuses the news site of knowingly publishing false information about how much Chris LaCivita, a Trump campaign manager, was paid by the campaign.One of President Trump’s former campaign managers, Chris LaCivita, on Monday filed a defamation lawsuit against The Daily Beast over its reporting on how much he was paid by the campaign.The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, accuses The Daily Beast of creating “the false impression that Mr. LaCivita was personally profiting excessively from his work on the campaign and that he was prioritizing personal gain over the campaign’s success.”It centers on an article published Oct. 15, 2024, with the headline: “Trump In Cash Crisis-As Campaign Chief’s $22m Pay Revealed.” The article was written by Michael Isikoff, a freelance journalist, who was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.The article stated that Mr. LaCivita, a manager of Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign, had negotiated a series of contracts and was paid millions of dollars over two years from the campaign. The allegations were repeated in several follow-up articles and discussed on a Daily Beast podcast.According to the complaint, Mr. LaCivita’s lawyers on Nov. 5 demanded a correction and a retraction, saying public records from the Federal Election Commission conflicted with statements in the article.The Daily Beast corrected its article a few days after the demand by changing the amount to $19.2 million from $22 million and clarified that the funds went to Mr. LaCivita’s consulting firm rather than to him personally. The headline was modified, and an editor’s note was appended to the article.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 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Blumenthal Calls ‘Shadow Hearing’ on Trump Veterans Cuts

      by

      Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the Veterans Affairs Committee, on Monday called on Doug Collins, the secretary of veterans affairs, to testify at an informal hearing next week to discuss how the Trump administration’s efforts to slash the federal work force have affected veterans and the federal agency that serves them.Mr. Collins is all but certain to decline the invitation from Mr. Blumenthal, who as a member of the minority party has no authority to call a hearing or set the panel’s agenda. His attempt to hold a so-called “shadow hearing” is the latest move by top Senate Democrats to try to scrutinize — and focus public attention on — the effects of President Trump’s policies on Americans at a time when Republicans who control Congress have refrained so far from using their oversight power to examine his administration’s actions in official settings.Mr. Trump’s initial job reductions at the Veterans Affairs Department, and the cancellation of hundreds of contracts, have caused chaotic ripple effects at the agency, disrupting treatment studies and forcing some facilities to fire support staff. Mr. Collins has promised a much deeper round of cuts — eliminating some 80,000 jobs and reviewing tens of thousands of contracts.In announcing his plan, Mr. Blumenthal emphasized the urgency of congressional oversight during what he called a “moment of crisis for veterans,” saying in a statement that he and his colleagues on Capitol Hill “have a responsibility to bring to light the impact of Musk-Trump’s disastrous and disgraceful cuts.” He said the hearing was also a bid to ensure that the voices of affected veterans and Department of Veterans Affairs employees were heard.The move underscores a notable deterioration in the normally bipartisan relationship between Mr. Blumenthal and Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas, the Republican chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee. The senators have maintained a productive working relationship, cosponsoring a range of legislation including measures to expand medical facilities run by the Department of Veterans Affairs and demonstrating a shared commitment to bettering the lives of veterans.Mr. Blumenthal’s effort mirrors similar action taken by Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Banking Committee who in February organized a similar “shadow hearing” to question Elon Musk regarding changes to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Mr. Musk did not appear, and Democrats had no power to compel him.The Department of Veterans Affairs, a vast bureaucracy with nearly 500,000 employees, has been a focal point for the Trump administration’s overhaul efforts because of its complex structure and history of scandals and waste.“Hearing from veterans and impacted stakeholders firsthand is the first step toward holding this administration accountable for their reckless and lawless directives,” Mr. Blumenthal said. More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Moves on Greenland Appear to Be Backfiring

      by

      For more than 150 years, U.S. officials have repeatedly wanted, as President Trump puts it, to “get” Greenland.The idea came up in the 1860s, then again before and after the world wars. In a way, the timing couldn’t be better than now, with Greenlanders re-examining their painful colonial history under Denmark and many people there itching to break off from Denmark, which still controls some of the island’s affairs.But President Trump seems to have overplayed his cards — big time.His decision, announced this weekend, to send a high-powered U.S. delegation to the island, apparently uninvited, is already backfiring. The administration tried to present it as a friendly trip, saying that Usha Vance, the wife of Vice President JD Vance, would attend a dogsled race this week with one of her sons, and that Michael Waltz, the national security adviser, would tour an American military base.But instead of winning the hearts and minds of Greenland’s 56,000 people, the move, coupled with Mr. Trump’s recent talk of how he will “get it, one way or the other,” is pushing Greenland further away.Over the past 24 hours, the Greenlandic government has dropped its previous posture of being shy and vague in the face of Mr. Trump’s pushiness. Instead, it has blasted him as “aggressive” and asked Europe for backup. And the planned visit may only strengthen the bonds between Greenland — an ice-covered land three times the size of Texas — and Denmark.“This will clearly have the opposite effect of what the Americans want,” said Lars Trier Mogensen, a political analyst based in Copenhagen. “This offensive pushes Greenland further away from the U.S., even though a year ago, all parties in Greenland were looking forward to more business with the Americans.”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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      White House Wants to Recruit Corporate Sponsors for Easter Egg Roll

      by

      The White House wants to recruit corporate sponsors to contribute to its Easter Egg Roll next month, raising ethical and legal concerns that President Trump is allowing companies to profit from the 147-year-old tradition by turning it into a showcase for their brands.The financial backers of the April 21 event would be able to choose from three options that cost between $75,000 and $200,000, according to a nine-page guide for potential sponsors that was reviewed by The New York Times.The most expensive package includes a corporate booth, logo placements, branded snacks or beverages, exclusive tickets to brunch with the first lady, Melania Trump, a chance to engage with the White House Press Corps, a private White House tour and 150 tickets to the event.“Be a part of history,” reads the guide, which was written by Harbinger, an event production company founded by Republican aides in 2013. It invites sponsors to “provide financial support, activities and giveaways to enhance the event while gaining valuable brand visibility and national recognition.”As in the past, any money raised through the event will go to the White House Historical Association, a private nonprofit educational organization founded by Jacqueline Kennedy in 1961. The event is largely held without taxpayer dollars, with the American Egg Board, a marketing group for the egg industry, sponsoring thousands of eggs for the event — but without the kind of visibility laid out by Harbinger’s guide.Federal regulations prohibit government employees from using their public office for private gain. Richard W. Painter, who served as chief ethics lawyer in the White House Counsel’s Office under President George W. Bush, said that the White House was clearly breaking that code by allowing private enterprises to use an official event to showcase their brands and letting the proceeds flow into a private nonprofit.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      How Trump Insists on Thanks From Zelensky and Other Foreign Leaders

      by

      It’s not unusual for presidents to want to hear some words of gratitude. But the friction usually happens behind closed doors.After President Trump spoke on the phone with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine last week, the White House wanted to make one thing clear: The Ukrainian leader was grateful to the American president. Very grateful.The statement recounting the call mentioned four times that Mr. Zelensky had thanked the president for his efforts to negotiate terms of a ceasefire with Russia. It then went on to note that Mr. Zelensky was “grateful” for Mr. Trump’s leadership.The description revealed a pattern in the Trump administration’s shaping of its foreign policy agenda: When it comes to diplomacy, Mr. Trump wants an implicit or explicit display of personal gratitude from American allies.Michael Froman, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said that Mr. Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy suggests that he sees aiding U.S. allies as a favor, rather than as a cornerstone of foreign policy that will pay dividends down the road.“That does sort of signal a fundamentally different notion of order than we have had for the last 80 years, which is that while our allies need to step up and do more for their own defense, our support of their defense is also in our interest,” Mr. Froman said. “ I believe President Trump is questioning that.”The starkest example of Trump’s insistence on a thank-you came during a meeting last month in the Oval Office that included Mr. Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Mr. Zelensky.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