More stories

  • in

    Why Is This Supreme Court Handing Trump More and More Power?

    Since taking his second oath of office, President Trump has been on a firing spree. In violation of numerous laws or longstanding presidential practice (or both), he has ordered the removal of many high-level officials who normally retain their positions regardless of who is in the Oval Office.Some of these high-level officials have successfully challenged their removal in the lower courts. But on Thursday, in a case involving members of the National Labor Relations and Merit Systems Protection Boards, the Supreme Court quietly blessed some or all of these firings. In doing so, the court effectively allowed the president to neutralize some of the last remaining sites of independent expertise and authority inside the executive branch.The court sought to cast its intervention as temporary, procedural and grounded in considerations of stability, with the unsigned order noting concerns about the “disruptive effect of the repeated removal and reinstatement of officers during the pendency of this litigation.”In truth, the decision was radical. Whatever one thinks about the underlying question of presidential authority, the court should not have disposed of the case this way. It effectively overruled an important and nearly century-old precedent central to the structure of the federal government without full briefing or argument. And it did so in a thinly reasoned, unsigned, two-page order handing the president underspecified but considerable new authority.Over the last four months, the legal world — and the country — has been plunged into chaos, and the Supreme Court bears a heavy dose of responsibility. Many of it decisions involving the presidency — including last year’s on presidential immunity — have enabled the president to declare himself above the law. The court’s latest order both enables the consolidation of additional power in the presidency and risks assimilating a “move fast and break things” ethos into constitutional law.No modern president has ever come close to the large-scale personnel purges that we have seen under Mr. Trump, and for good reason: Many of the officials in question are protected by law from being fired at will by the president. Mr. Trump maintains that laws limiting the president’s ability to fire high-level officials are unconstitutional. In making that argument, he is drawing on a series of recent Supreme Court opinions emphasizing the importance of presidential control over subordinate officials and invalidating removal limitations at agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.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

  • in

    Fulfilling a Trump Pledge, U.S. Lifts Some Sanctions on Syria

    President Trump had promised to lift sanctions during his trip to the Middle East, where he met with President Ahmed al-Shara of Syria.The Trump administration on Friday lifted several major sanctions on Syria, a first step toward making good on President Trump’s promise earlier this month to help the country’s new leader establish a stable government after the fall of the brutal dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad last year.The Treasury Department lifted regulations banning U.S. citizens and companies from making most financial transactions with Syrian citizens and entities, including Syria’s central bank, officials said. At the same time, the State Department announced it was suspending for six months other tough sanctions imposed on Syria under the 2019 Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act.Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement that lifting the sanctions would “advance Syria’s recovery and reconstruction efforts” and “facilitate the provision of electricity, energy, water, and sanitation, and enable a more effective humanitarian response” in the country.The Assad government cracked down on an uprising in 2011, setting off a civil war that caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and forced a mass exodus of Syrians.In December, the Assad regime was finally overthrown by a rebel alliance after more than 10 years of fighting, and Ahmed al-Shara, a rebel leader, became president. Mr. al-Shara once led a branch of Al Qaeda but later broke with the jihadist group, and in recent interviews he has expressed support for democracy, presenting a more pragmatic, nationalist approach to governing.During his trip to Saudi Arabia this month, Mr. Trump agreed to meet with Mr. al-Shara, becoming first U.S. leader in a generation to shake hands with a Syrian head of state.Mr. Trump said he had reached the decision to lift the sanctions on Syria after speaking with Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who backed the anti-Assad insurgency, and Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman.“There is a new government that will, hopefully, succeed in stabilizing the country and keeping peace,” Mr. Trump said in Saudi Arabia on May 13. “That’s what we want to see in Syria.” More

  • in

    Ex-McKinsey Partner Sentenced in Obstruction Case

    The consultant had deleted records involving McKinsey’s role in pushing OxyContin sales and driving the opioid crisis.A former senior partner at McKinsey & Company was sentenced on Thursday to six months in prison for destroying records that shed light on the firm’s role in the national opioid crisis.The partner, Martin Elling, 60, had pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice as part of a federal case against the firm and its efforts to “turbocharge” sales of OxyContin during an overdose epidemic that had already killed hundreds of thousands of people. McKinsey agreed to pay $650 million to end that investigation last December.The records purge happened in 2018, when Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, was facing multiple lawsuits. Mr. Elling emailed a colleague who worked with him on the Purdue account, writing: “It probably makes sense to have a quick conversation with the risk committee to see if we should be doing anything” other than “eliminating all our documents and emails. Suspect not but as things get tougher there someone might turn to us.”Mr. Elling was fired after The New York Times reported about the exchange in 2020.After he sent that email, Mr. Elling proceeded to delete files related to his work with Purdue, according to the Justice Department, which performed a forensic analysis of his laptop.In a statement on Thursday, Mr. Elling’s legal team confirmed the sentencing and said he “fully accepts responsibility for his conduct, for which he is extremely sorry.” Besides the six-month prison term, handed down in Federal District Court in Abingdon, Va., Mr. Elling will serve 1,000 hours of community service over two years of supervised release.McKinsey’s work with clients around the world has come under intense public scrutiny in recent years, leading the firm to pay out more than $1.5 billion in fines and penalties. Last year, McKinsey’s work in China was the focus of a Senate hearing, and the firm agreed to pay more than $122 million to resolve a bribery investigation involving a branch in South Africa.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

  • in

    E.U. Offers Emergency Funding for Radio Free Europe After Trump Cuts

    The European Union said it would provide short-term financing for Radio Free Europe, but the amount falls short of what the news outlet says it needs to stay afloat.The European Union said Tuesday that it was stepping in to provide emergency funding to Radio Free Europe, though the promised amount fell far short of what the news organization said it needed to stay afloat after the Trump administration froze federal support.Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s top diplomat, announced that the bloc would provide 5.5 million euros ($6.2 million) to support Radio Free Europe, which provides independent reporting in countries with limited press freedoms.“In a time of growing, unfiltered content, independent journalism is more important than ever,” Ms. Kallas said. But she added that the funding would be for the short term and that the European Union could not make up the news outlet’s entire shortfall.Since taking office in January, President Trump has ordered the dismantling of Radio Free Europe’s parent organization, the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which provides the broadcaster with $12 million in congressional funding each month. A U.S. District Court judge initially paused Mr. Trump’s termination of the congressional grants, but this month a federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration could continue to withhold the funds.Stephen Capus, the president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, said on Tuesday that he was grateful for the emergency E.U. funding to keep the operation running “for a short while longer.” He said that the news organization was continuing to fight in court for the release of congressionally appropriated funds.“RFE/RL’s survival remains at risk as long as those funds are withheld,” he said in a statement.The news organization on Tuesday filed an emergency petition in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking its May funding. Radio Free Europe said last week that it had received its April funding from Congress, though it came six weeks later than scheduled, forcing the news organization to reduce programming and staff.Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which has been funded by Congress since it began broadcasting during the Cold War, reports on human rights and corruption in several countries run by authoritarian governments. In the 1980s, it reported on the aftermath of the Chernobyl nuclear accident, details of which the Soviet authorities had obscured.Today, it broadcasts in 23 countries, including Russia, Ukraine, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as nations in Central Asia and the Caucasus. More

  • in

    Drug Overdose Deaths Plummeted in 2024, C.D.C. Reports

    The progress comes as the Trump administration is proposing to cut funding for many programs believed to have contributed to the improvement.Overdose deaths in the United States fell by nearly 30,000 last year, the government reported on Wednesday, the strongest sign yet that the country is making progress against one of its deadliest, most intractable public health crises.The data, released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the latest in a series of reports over the past year offering hints that the drug-related death toll that has gutted families and communities could be starting to ease.Public health experts had been carefully watching the monthly updates, with skepticism at first, and then with growing hope. Wednesday’s report was the most encouraging yet. Deaths declined in all major categories of drug use, stimulants as well as opioids, dropping in every state but two. Nationwide, drug fatalities plunged nearly 27 percent.“This is a decline that we’ve been waiting more than a decade for,” said Dr. Matthew Christiansen, a physician and former director of West Virginia’s drug control policy. “We’ve invested hundreds of billions of dollars into addiction.”Addiction specialists said that changes in the illicit drug supply as well as greater access to drug treatment and the use of naloxone to reverse overdoses seemed to be playing a role, but whether the country could sustain that progress was an open question.In announcing the new numbers, the C.D.C. praised President Trump, saying in a statement that since he “declared the opioid crisis a public health emergency in 2017” the government had added more resources to battle the drug problem.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

  • in

    Cartel Family Members Crossed Into U.S., Mexican Official Says

    Mexico’s security secretary confirmed reports that 17 family members of Sinaloa Cartel leaders had crossed into the United States, likely as part of a deal with the Trump administration.A group of family members of Sinaloa Cartel leaders crossed into the United States last week, likely as part of a deal with the Trump administration, Mexico’s secretary of security said on Tuesday evening.For days, rumors had spread that 17 relatives, including the ex-wife of the crime boss known as El Chapo, had flown from a cartel stronghold to Tijuana, Mexico, and then crossed into the United States. A news outlet, Pie de Nota, reported that they had surrendered to U.S. federal authorities there, citing anonymous sources.The Sinaloa Cartel, co-founded by Joaquín Guzmán Loera, known as El Chapo, is one of the most powerful criminal groups in the world, although it has been divided by violence between rival factions as several of its leaders face prison and prosecution in the United States.When asked about reports that the family members had entered the United States on Monday, President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico said “there is no more information” than what she had seen.But the security secretary, Omar García Harfuch, then confirmed late Tuesday that relatives of the cartel leader Ovidio Guzmán López, one of El Chapo’s four sons, had surrendered to American authorities. Mr. Guzmán López was extradited to the United States in 2023.“It is evident that his family is going to the U.S. because of a negotiation or a plea bargain that the Department of Justice is giving him,” Mr. García Harfuch told the Mexican network Radio Fórmula.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

  • in

    Taking Inches in Battle, Russia Demands Miles in Talks

    Moscow thinks it’s winning in Ukraine and can play hardball diplomatically. Washington sees costly, incremental gains and an unrealistic negotiating position.As the world waits to to see if he shows up in Turkey for cease-fire negotiations this week, President Vladimir V. Putin has been sending a clear message, reinforced by his officials. They are winning on the battlefield, so they should get what they want.Mr. Putin said in late March that Russian forces had the advantage on the entire front and suggested Moscow was close to vanquishing the Ukrainians — an argument the Kremlin has used to underpin hardball demands. “We have reason to believe that we are set to finish them off,” Mr. Putin said, adding: “People in Ukraine need to realize what is going on.”Andrei V. Kartapolov, head of the defense committee in the lower chamber of Russian Parliament, reiterated that message on Tuesday, saying Ukraine needed to recognize the Russian military was advancing in 116 directions. If the Ukrainians did not want to talk, he added, they must listen to “the language of the Russian bayonet.”Andrei V. Kartapolov, a senior Russian lawmaker, has said the Russian military is advancing in 116 directions.Anton Vaganov/ReutersThe hardball approach has been accompanied by gamesmanship over peace negotiations. It is unclear whether Mr. Putin will attend the talks he initially proposed for midlevel delegations on Thursday in Turkey. Mr. Zelensky upped the ante, saying he would attend and expected to see Mr. Putin, knowing Mr. Putin is loath to meet him. President Trump said he might go if the Russian president went.And Mr. Putin has left everyone in limbo.The Russian position has posed a challenge for the Trump administration, which has found Russian officials making extreme demands that the battlefield situation does not appear to justify. While Russian forces have seized the advantage and taken territory of late, they are a far cry from defeating the Ukrainians and have advanced at a very high cost.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

  • in

    South Africa’s Leader Criticizes Afrikaners Seeking Refuge in U.S.

    President Cyril Ramaphosa called the white South Africans “cowardly” for leaving for the United States.President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa said white South Africans who had left for the United States after being granted refugee status there were “cowardly,” in a blunt broadside as tensions over the issue mount between the countries.“They are running away” from a duty to help with South Africa’s transformation and solve its problems, Mr. Ramaphosa told reporters on Tuesday, adding, “When you run away, you are a coward.” More than 8,000 South Africans have expressed interest in the U.S. program to create an expedited path for Afrikaners to resettle in the United States. That comes even as the Trump administration has barred most refugees from other countries.If approved, they would join the dozens of people who arrived on Monday at an airport outside Washington on a charter flight funded by the United States.The program for the Afrikaners has cut to the heart of post-apartheid race dynamics in South Africa. The country’s government has strongly rejected the Trump administration’s assertion that the Afrikaners — members of a white ethnic minority that ruled during apartheid in South Africa — should be eligible for refugee status.The Afrikaners “do not fit the definition of a refugee,” Mr. Ramaphosa said on Monday at a forum in Abidjan, Ivory Coast.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