United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Chief Justice Allows U.S. to Continue Freeze on Foreign Aid Payments

      by

      Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Wednesday night handed the Trump administration a victory for now in saying that the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department did not need to immediately pay for more than $1.5 billion in already completed aid work.A federal judge had set a midnight deadline for the agencies to release funds for the foreign aid work. The Trump administration, in an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court just hours before the deadline, said the judge had overstepped his authority and interfered with the president’s obligations to “make appropriate judgments about foreign aid.”Chief Justice Roberts, acting on his own, issued an “administrative stay,” an interim measure meant to preserve the status quo while the justices consider the matter in a more deliberate fashion. The chief justice ordered the challengers to file a response to the application on Friday, and the court is likely to act not long after.In another aggressive move on Wednesday to carry out President Trump’s Day 1 directive to gut U.S. spending overseas, lawyers for the Trump administration said that it was ending nearly 10,000 U.S. Agency for International Development and State Department contracts and grants.The administration actions stunned diplomats and aid workers already reeling from mass firings at U.S.A.I.D., which funds food, health, development and democracy programs abroad, and which the Trump administration has systematically dismantled. A former senior U.S.A.I.D. official said the cuts account for about 90 percent of the agency’s work and tens of billions of dollars in spending.The signage for U.S.A.I.D. in Washington, which has been covered up with tape, seen on Tuesday.Jason Andrew 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

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Seeks Prompt Supreme Court Review of His Power to Fire Officials

      by

      The Trump administration told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that developments in the first case arising from the president’s blitz of executive actions to reach the justices would require prompt action.The court ruled last week that President Trump could not, for now, remove a government lawyer who leads the watchdog agency that protects whistle-blowers. But the court’s order said that it would hold the government’s emergency application “in abeyance” and might soon return to the issue.The ruling noted that a trial judge’s temporary restraining order shielding the lawyer, Hampton Dellinger, was set to expire on Wednesday.Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel.U.S. Office of Special Counsel, via ReutersAfter a hearing on Wednesday, the judge, Amy Berman Jackson of the Federal District Court in Washington, extended her order until Saturday to provide time for her to write an opinion in the matter. In a letter to the justices, Sarah M. Harris, the acting solicitor general, wrote that developments since they last acted had underscored the need for a prompt resolution.Mr. Dellinger has been busy, she wrote. In his role as the head of the Office of Special Counsel, he filed challenges to the firings of six probationary employees before the Merit Systems Protection Board, which temporarily reinstated them on Tuesday.“In short, a fired special counsel is wielding executive power, over the elected executive’s objection, to halt employment decisions made by other executive agencies,” Mr. Harris wrote. The merit board, moreover, she wrote, “is being led by a chairman who has herself been fired by the president, only to be reinstated by a district court.”All of that means the justices must act soon, Ms. Harris wrote.“The government respectfully asks that this court at a minimum continue to hold the application in abeyance, if the court does not grant it now,” she wrote. “Once the district court issues its final decision, presumably on March 1, it may become necessary for the government to request further relief.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s First Cabinet Meeting Was a Display of Deference to Elon Musk

      by

      President Trump’s first cabinet meeting was a display of deference to Elon Musk.A couple of hours before President Trump convened his cabinet for the first time, he used his social media platform to declare that the group was “EXTREMELY HAPPY WITH ELON.”As the meeting began, it seemed to be the members’ job to prove it.The secretaries sat largely in silence behind their paper name cards, the sort of thing you need when, powerful though you may be, you are not a household name. And they listened politely as the richest man in the world loomed over them, scolding them about the size of the deficit, sheepishly admitting to temporarily canceling an effort to prevent ebola and insisting they were all crucial to his mission.“I’d like to thank everyone for your support,” Elon Musk said.In fact, Musk has not had the support of every cabinet secretary — at least not when he tried to order their employees to account for their time over email or resign. When a reporter asked about the obvious tension, Trump kicked the question to the secretaries themselves.“Is anybody unhappy with Elon?” Trump asked. “If you are, we’ll throw him out of here. Is anybody unhappy?”Nobody was unhappy. Nervous laughter rippled around the table as Howard Lutnick, the secretary of commerce, grinned and led a slow clap, which Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, eventually joined before scratching her nose.Next to her, Kelly Loeffler, the small business administrator, applauded and attended to an itch on her ear. Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered up a single clap and gazed over at Musk, a fixed smile on his face. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health secretary, shifted in his seat.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 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Tim Walz Will Not Run for Minnesota’s Senate Seat

      by

      Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, who rose from relative obscurity to become the Democratic nominee for vice president last year, will not run for his state’s open Senate seat in 2026 and will instead begin the process to seek a third term as governor, his spokesman said Wednesday.“Governor Walz is not running for the United States Senate,” said Teddy Tschann, Mr. Walz’s spokesman. “He loves his job as governor and he’s exploring the possibility of another term to continue his work to make Minnesota the best state in the country for kids.”By staying out of the contest to replace Senator Tina Smith, a Minnesota Democrat who is not seeking re-election in 2026, Mr. Walz effectively kicks off a primary contest for the Senate seat that could be competitive should Republicans field a well-financed candidate.It also positions Mr. Walz, who won national attention for his “Midwestern dad” persona and football-coach background when he and Vice President Kamala Harris ran against Donald J. Trump, to potentially enter the 2028 Democratic presidential primary. During an interview with a Dutch television station last week, Mr. Walz said he was “not ruling out” running for president.Focusing on re-election also allows Mr. Walz to avoid what would have been an awkward Senate primary contest against his lieutenant governor, Peggy Flanagan, who announced her campaign for the seat last week. Mr. Walz and Ms. Flanagan, who had been political allies for two decades, had a falling out over shared campaign finances when Mr. Walz returned to Minnesota from the presidential campaign trail.Several other Minnesota Democrats have said they are considering running for Ms. Smith’s Senate seat. They include Keith Ellison, the state’s attorney general, Representatives Angie Craig and Ilhan Omar, and Melissa Hortman, the Democratic leader in the Minnesota state house. Mr. Walz is not expected to endorse a candidate in the primary.On the Republican side, Royce White, a former professional basketball player who lost a 2024 Senate race to Senator Amy Klobuchar, has said he will run, along with Adam Schwarze, a former Navy SEAL. Michelle Tafoya, a former television sports broadcaster who has become a regular on the right-wing commentary circuit, has also said she is considering running for the seat.No one has yet entered the race for governor of Minnesota. Mr. Walz coasted to general election victories in 2018 and 2022, though the state has been much closer in two of the last three presidential elections. More

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      U.S.-Ukraine Minerals Deal Draft Features Vague Reference to Security Guarantees

      by

      A copy of the agreement obtained by The New York Times says that the United States “supports Ukraine’s effort to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace.”A draft of an agreement calling for Ukraine to hand over to the United States revenue from natural resources includes new language referring to security guarantees, a provision Kyiv had pressed for vigorously in negotiations.But the reference is vague and does not signal any specific American commitment to safeguarding Ukraine’s security.A copy of the agreement obtained Wednesday by The New York Times included a sentence stating that the United States “supports Ukraine’s effort to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace.” Previous drafts did not have the phrase on security guarantees.It was not clear whether the draft, dated Tuesday, was a final version.A Ukrainian official briefed on the draft, and several people in Ukraine with knowledge of the talks, confirmed that wording on security had been included in the document. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private negotiations.The agreement is seen as opening the door to possible continued backing from the United States under the Trump administration, either as aid for the war effort or as enforcement of any cease-fire. Officials in the United States and Ukraine said on Tuesday that a version had been accepted by both sides.President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine is expected to travel to Washington on Friday to sign the agreement with President Trump. The draft obtained by The Times showed Scott Bessent, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Yulia Svyrydenko, Ukraine’s economy minister, as the initial signatories.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

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Dockworkers Vote to Accept New Labor Contract

      by

      Workers at East and Gulf Coast ports who went on strike briefly in October ratified a deal that includes a 62 percent raise over six years.Dockworkers on the East and Gulf Coasts voted in favor of a new contract on Tuesday, ending labor turbulence at ports that handle a large share of U.S. trade with the rest of the world.The dockworkers’ union, the International Longshoremen’s Association, said nearly 99 percent of its members had supported the contract, which raises wages 62 percent over six years and guarantees jobs when employers introduce technology that can move cargo autonomously.The deal was reached after a short strike in October, the first full-scale walkout since 1977, and the intervention of two U.S. presidents.Officials from the Biden administration pushed the United States Maritime Alliance, the group representing employers, to increase its wage offer, which ended the strike and brought the I.LA. back to the bargaining table. After his election victory, Donald J. Trump backed the union, saying he supported their fight against automation.“This is an incredible contract package,” Harold J. Daggett, the president of the I.L.A., said in a statement.Dockworkers have significant leverage in contract talks because they can shut down ports, throwing supply chains into chaos. But labor experts said Mr. Daggett had bolstered the union’s cause by calling a strike and by establishing strong ties with Mr. Trump.“The only way they would have gotten a deal like this was through striking, showing that they had the economic power and, it turns out, the political power,” said William Brucher, an assistant professor at the Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations.All 41 members of the Maritime Alliance, a group that includes port operating companies and shipping lines, voted for the contract, which covers the roughly 25,000 longshoremen who move containers on the East and Gulf Coasts.Under the contact, hourly wages will rise to $63 in 2029, from the current $39. That is comparable to the pay for dockworkers on the West Coast, represented by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, whose wages will rise to nearly $61 in 2027.With overtime and higher rates for working at night, longshoremen can earn well over $200,000 a year.The I.L.A. has long opposed the introduction of automated cranes and other machines.Like the old contract, the new one bars employers from deploying machinery that can operate at all times without a person directing its moves. The West Coast longshoremen’s union has allowed such technology — like driverless container-moving vehicles — at its ports for years.But the I.L.A.’s new contract does not stop employers from adding cranes that can at times perform tasks — like stacking containers — without direction from a human. And the new contract makes it easier for employers to introduce such cranes.Still, the union got a job guarantee that management would assign at least one worker for each additional crane. (Now, one union worker might remotely oversee and operate several cranes at once.) More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Administration Plans to Require Undocumented Immigrants to Register

      by

      The move, which could expose unregistered migrants to criminal prosecution, represents a drastic escalation of the administration’s efforts to push millions of immigrants to leave on their own.The Trump administration said on Tuesday that it planned to make undocumented immigrants age 14 or older in the United States register and provide their fingerprints to the U.S. government or potentially face criminal prosecution.The announcement by the Department of Homeland Security is a drastic escalation in the Trump administration’s efforts to push millions of immigrants in the country illegally to leave on their own. Administration officials have repeatedly implored such immigrants to depart. Now they are adding an implicit threat.“President Trump and Secretary Noem have a clear message for those in our country illegally: Leave now,” Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the department, said in a statement, referring to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. “If you leave now, you may have the opportunity to return and enjoy our freedom and live the American dream.”In a Fox News interview on Tuesday, Ms. Noem said the migrant registry plan was part of an effort to “use every single tool at our disposal to do exactly what President Trump promised the American people.”Migrants who do not register could face criminal or civil penalties, including fines. But it is unlikely the new rule will result in widespread compliance.Immigrants in the country illegally are unlikely to come forward to register with the government, especially given Mr. Trump’s threats of mass deportations. The administration also does not know where many unauthorized immigrants are, making it difficult to prosecute them if they do not register.Still, the move was a sign of the Trump administration’s intent to use every resource available to create a hostile environment for immigrants with the hope that they will leave the United States voluntarily.“We’re seeing an effort to expand arrests through any means possible, so this provision likely aims to create additional justifications to arrest and deport more individuals from the country,” said Cris Ramón, a senior immigration adviser for UnidosUS, a civil rights organization. “It also creates additional confusion for undocumented individuals, increasing the fear that’s gripped them and their families since late January.”The new plan would rely on an existing immigration law, although one that has not generally been enforced. Shortly before the United States entered World War II, the U.S. passed a law requiring undocumented immigrants to register with the U.S. government at their local post office.The department said the registration effort does not apply to those who have green cards, who are already in deportation proceedings or who entered the country with visas. But parents of undocumented immigrants younger than 14 must register their children.The requirement was set up in the flurry of Day 1 executive orders issued by the Trump administration. The current chief of staff of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Jon Feere, has also previously advocated enforcing registration requirements. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      What Can House Republicans Cut Instead of Medicaid? Not Much.

      by

      The math of the G.O.P.’s goals makes the move almost unavoidable.The House passed a budget resolution Tuesday night after the speaker, Mike Johnson, persuaded several Republican lawmakers, including those who have expressed reservations about possible Medicaid cuts, to support the bill.In theory, the budget, which kicks off the process of passing an extension of tax cuts enacted in 2017 and up to $2 trillion in spending cuts meant to partly offset them, could become law without significant cuts to Medicaid. But it won’t be easy. More