President Trump

President Trump’s tariff strategy has been thrown into turmoil after a U.S. court issued a rare rebuke blocking many of the import taxes he has threatened and imposed on other countries.

In a ruling issued late Wednesday, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of International Trade declared that the Trump administration had wrongly invoked a 1977 law in imposing his “Liberation Day” tariffs on dozens of countries and they were therefore illegal. It also extended that ruling to previous tariffs levied on Canada, Mexico and China over the security of the U.S. border and trafficking in fentanyl.

The Trump administration immediately said it would appeal, putting the fate of the tariffs in the hands of an appellate court and potentially the Supreme Court. The ruling doesn’t affect Trump’s first-term levies on many imports from China or sectoral duties planned or already imposed on goods including steel, which are based on a different legal foundation that the Trump administration may now be forced to make more use of to pursue its tariff campaign.

It’s unclear just how fast Wednesday’s ruling will go into effect, with the court giving the government up to 10 days to carry out the necessary administrative moves to remove the tariffs. But if the decision holds, it would in a matter of days eliminate new 30% U.S. tariffs on imports from China, 25% tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico and 10% duties on most other goods entering the U.S.

Those tariffs and the prospect of retaliatory ones have been seen as a significant drag on U.S. and global growth and eliminating them — even temporarily — would improve prospects for the world’s major economies.

There is uncertainty over whether the ruling represents a permanent setback to Trump’s push to reshape global trade or a mere impediment. Trump and his supporters have attacked judges as biased and his administration has been accused of failing to fully comply with other court orders, raising questions over whether it will do so this time.

A White House spokesperson dismissed the ruling as one made by “unelected judges” who should not have the power “to decide how to properly address a national emergency.” Trump has invoked national emergencies ranging from the U.S. trade deficit to overdose deaths to justify many of his tariffs.

“Foreign countries’ nonreciprocal treatment of the Unites States has fueled America’s historic and persistent trade deficits,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. “These deficits have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base — facts that the court did not dispute.”

If the ruling isn’t reversed or ignored, one of the consequences could be greater fiscal concerns at a time when bond markets are questioning the trajectory of the U.S.’s mounting debt load. The Trump administration has been citing increased tariff revenues as a way to offset tax cuts in his “one big, beautiful bill” now before Congress, which is estimated to cost $3.8 trillion over the next decade.

U.S. importers paid a record $16.5 billion in tariffs in April and Trump’s aides have said they expected that to rise in the coming months.

Major trading partners including China, the European Union, India, and Japan that are in negotiations with the Trump’s administration must now decide whether to press ahead in efforts to secure deals or slow walk talks on the bet they now have a stronger hand.

Deal doubts

Also thrown into doubt would be the outlines for a trade deal that Trump reached with the UK earlier in May. That potential pact calls for the imposition of a 10% U.S. tariff on all imports from the UK that would be null and void if Wednesday’s decision endures.

“I don’t know why any country would want to engage in negotiations to get out of tariffs that have now been declared illegal,” said Jennifer Hillman, a Georgetown Law School professor and former WTO judge and general counsel for the U.S. Trade Representative. “It’s a very definitive decision that the reciprocal worldwide tariffs are simply illegal.”

Hillman and other legal experts pointed out that Trump has other legal authorities he can draw on. But none would give him as broad powers as those he invoked under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.

A provision of the 1974 trade act gives presidents the power to impose tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days, though only in the event a balance of payments crisis, which Trump may not want to declare given the current nervous state of bond markets, Hillman said.

Trump could also invoke other authorities to impose tariffs on individual sectors or countries, as he did in his first term. In recent months, he has already used national security powers to impose duties on imported steel, aluminum and cars and launched seven other investigations pertaining to things like pharmaceuticals, lumber and critical minerals.

“The Trump administration’s toolbox won’t be completely empty,” Dmitry Grozoubinski, director of ExplainTrade and author of the book “Why Politicians Lie About Trade” said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. But as for IEEPA, “if they comply with this ruling that takes that toy out of the toy box.”

More uncertainty

Wednesday’s ruling came in two parallel cases brought by a conservative group on behalf of a small business and U.S. states controlled by Democrats.

“This ruling reaffirms that the President must act within the bounds of the law, and it protects American businesses and consumers from the destabilizing effects of volatile, unilaterally imposed tariffs,” said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel for the conservative Liberty Justice Center, which brought one of the cases.

For many other businesses, it brought the prospect of yet another sharp turn in U.S. tariff policies and more short-term questions and headaches.

Southern California-based Freight Right Global Logistics has several shipments on the water now for clients all over the U.S., carrying goods largely from China. Those containers are filled with everything from toys to robots, and it’s very uncertain what the tariff burden will be for those shipments when they land, said Freight Right Chief Executive Robert Khachatryan.

Khachatryan fielded questions Wednesday evening from his clients on potential refunds, which tariffs will be removed, and what would be the effective dates.

“We are working hard to answer customers questions but the reality is that there is not enough information out there yet,” he said. “Tomorrow we’re going to be all over the place figuring out what this means in practice.”

Donnan, Larson and Curtis write for Bloomberg News.

MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace has delivered some sharp criticism of President Trump since she became a host on the progressive-leaning cable news network in 2017.

So it’s surprising that her new podcast shares its name with one of Trump’s regular boasts about his team: “The Best People.”

“I thought he had abandoned it,” Wallace, 53, told The Times. “But I actually think ‘the best people’ was one of his best messages in 2016.”

“He abandoned it officially when he picked Matt Gaetz,” she added, referring to Trump’s first choice for attorney general.

Each week on “The Best People,” starting Monday, Wallace will have lengthy conversations with actors, musicians, thought leaders and other figures outside of politics. The guest on the first episode is actor and fellow podcaster Jason Bateman, followed by Sarah Jessica Parker, music producer Jimmy Jam, folk singer Joan Baez and Milwaukee Bucks coach Doc Rivers in coming weeks.

The jump into podcasting comes as the network looks for more ways to reach the growing number of consumers who are no longer watching cable TV.

The network says its existing audio podcasts, which include series from hosts Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes and Jen Psaki, will top 10 million downloads in May.

“Our goal is to meet our audience where they are and to bring the talent of our hosts and anchors to them in those spaces,” said Madeleine Haeringer, MSNBC’s senior vice president of digital, audio and longform. “It’s not a one-size-fits-all formula — but instead, tailoring each project to both the host and the platform.”

Wallace said she was ready to expand her role at MSNBC before the corporate changes. Podcasting appealed to her because, as a working mom, she knows many women aren’t available to watch her daily program in the afternoon.

Her branching out into less overtly political territory is somewhat unexpected.

The former Bush White House communications director’s tenure on the ABC talk show “The View” was brief, partly due to her lack of pop culture expertise.

That’s not a concern this time around, she said. The guests she solicited for “The Best People” are coming to the table to discuss their own advocacy issues apart from the kind of instant political analysis presented on her MSNBC program “Deadline: White House.”

Wallace connected with Jimmy Jam when they discussed creating a “We Are the World” type of musical production to aid Ukraine. She knew Rivers through his social justice activism (as coach of the Los Angeles Clippers, he had to guide the players through the scandal over former owner Donald Sterling’s racist comments) and Parker for her devotion to literacy programs.

The podcast format allows them to open up in a way that doesn’t always happen on live TV.

“For some reason, people sitting in front of their computer screens on the Zoom are even more candid and forthcoming about how they feel,” Wallace said.

Wallace is wading into digital media at a time when MSNBC is in transition. The channel, along with other NBCUniversal cable outlets, is being spun off from current owner Comcast into a new company called Versant.

Comcast is getting out of the cable channel business, with the exception of its potent reality brand Bravo, out of concern about the steady decline of the pay TV audience. Over the last 10 years, cord-cutting has reduced the number of cable homes MSNBC reaches by 33%.

MSNBC also saw a mass exodus of viewers just after the presidential election, as its loyal left-leaning audience tuned out after Trump’s victory.

The ratings have gradually climbed back up, with MSNBC maintaining its second place position behind perennial cable leader Fox News but well ahead of third place CNN. In May, the network was up 24% from the lows it hit in November and December, but is still down 35% compared to the presidential campaign-elevated levels of a year ago, according to Nielsen.

But leadership at Versant has it made clear that MSNBC will continue to cater to a politically progressive audience.

Wallace believes the commitment to the network’s point of view has only deepened under new management. “It’s a culture that really rewards deep wonky coverage of politics,” she said. “[MSNBC President] Rebecca Kutler has come in and tripled down on all of that.”

The spinoff requires separating MSNBC from NBC News, where some journalists were uneasy with the intensity of partisan commentary on the cable network. Versant is hiring its own newsgathering team — as many as 100 journalists — including justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Dilanian, who is moving over from NBC.

“To work for someone who is hiring reporters at a time when we’re looking at an administration that seems a little meh about the Constitution is pretty forward leaning,” Wallace said.

She was inspired to try something new by the extracurricular activities of her husband, the New York Times’ Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Michael S. Schmidt, who co-created the Netflix thriller series “Zero Day” with former NBC News President Noah Oppenheim.

“Michael enjoyed it so much it gave me the idea to add something that is a little outside my comfort zone,” Wallace said.

Wallace met Schmidt, 41, at MSNBC, where he is a contributor. They married in 2022 and a year later had their first child via surrogate. Wallace also has a 13-year-old son, Liam, from her first marriage.

While Wallace and Schmidt have a business-like dynamic when they appear together on the program, family matters creep in off-camera.

“When we are both on set, my son is texting us about dinner,” Wallace said. “During the breaks, we’re never talking about the rule of law. We’re talking about logistics.”

The U.S. Justice Department has launched an investigation into whether California, its interscholastic sports federation and the Jurupa Unified School District are violating the civil rights of cisgender girls by allowing transgender students to compete in school sports, federal officials announced Wednesday.

The Justice Department is also throwing its support behind a pending lawsuit alleging similar violations of girls’ rights in the Riverside Unified School District, said U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, who oversees much of the Los Angeles region, and Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

Transgender track athletes have come under intense scrutiny in recent months in both Jurupa Valley and Riverside, with anti-LGBTQ+ activists attacking them on social media and screaming opposition to their competing at school meets.

Essayli and Dhillon, both Californians appointed under President Trump, have long fought against transgender rights in the state. Their announcements came one day after Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from California for allowing transgender youth to participate in sports.

The legal actions are just the latest attempts by the Trump administration to scale back transgender rights nationwide, including by bringing the fight to California — which has the nation’s largest queer population and some of its most robust LGBTQ+ legal protections — and targeting individual student athletes in the state.

Both Trump in his threats Tuesday and Essayli and Dhillon in their announcement of the investigation Wednesday appeared to reference the recent success of a 16-year-old transgender track athlete at Jurupa Valley High School named AB Hernandez. Trump wrongly suggested that Hernandez had won “everything” at a recent meet — which Hernandez didn’t do.

In a comment to The Times on Wednesday, Hernandez’s mother, Nereyda Hernandez, said it was heartbreaking to see her child being attacked “simply for being who they are,” and despite following all California laws and policies for competing.

“My child is a transgender student-athlete, a hardworking, disciplined, and passionate young person who just wants to play sports, continue to build friendships, and grow into their fullest potential like any other child,” her mother said.

The mother of another transgender high school track athlete in Riverside County who is the subject of the pending lawsuit the Justice Department is now backing declined to comment Wednesday.

The Justice Department said it had sent letters of legal notice to California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, the California Interscholastic Federation and Jurupa Unified.

The U.S. Department of Education had previously announced in February that it was investigating the CIF for allowing transgender athletes to compete. Dhillon said the two federal departments would coordinate their investigations.

Bonta has defended state laws protecting transgender youth, students and athletes, and advised school systems and other institutions in the state, such as hospitals, to adhere to state LGBTQ+ laws — even in the face of various Trump executive orders aimed at curtailing the rights of and healthcare for transgender youth. On Wednesday, his office said it remained “committed to defending and upholding California laws.”

Scott Roark, a spokesman for the California Department of Education, said his agency could not comment. Jacquie Paul, a spokesperson for Jurupa Unified, said the school system had yet to receive the letter Wednesday, and “without further information” could not comment. A spokesperson for the Riverside Unified School District also declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.

The CIF, in a statement, said it “values all of our student-athletes and we will continue to uphold our mission of providing students with the opportunity to belong, connect, and compete while complying with California law and Education Code.”

However, the sports federation also changed its rules for the upcoming 2025 CIF State Track and Field Championships, saying a cisgender girl who is bumped from qualifying for event finals by a transgender athlete would still be allowed to compete and would also be awarded the medal for whichever place they would have claimed were the transgender athlete not competing.

The changes brought renewed criticism from advocates on both sides of the political issue, including Chino Valley Unified school board President Sonja Shaw. Shaw is a Trump supporter running for state schools superintendent who has challenged pro-LGBTQ+ laws statewide and supports the latest investigation. She said that, in making the changes, CIF was “admitting” that girls “are being pushed out of their own sports.”

Dhillon said her office’s “pattern or practice” investigation will consider whether California’s laws and the CIF policies violate Title IX, a 1972 federal civil rights law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal funding.

Title IX has been used in the past to win rights for transgender people, but the Trump administration has taken a strikingly different view of the law — and cited it as a reason transgender rights must be rolled back.

Dhillon said the law “exists to protect women and girls in education,” that it is “perverse to allow males to compete against girls, invade their private spaces, and take their trophies,” and that her division would “aggressively defend women’s hard-fought rights to equal educational opportunities.”

Essayli said in a statement that his office would “work tirelessly to protect girls’ sports and stop anyone — public officials included — from violating women’s civil rights.”

LGBTQ+ advocates, civic institutions in California and many Democratic lawmakers in the state have denounced the framing of transgender inclusion in sports as diminishing the rights of women and girls and accused Trump and other Republicans of attacking transgender people — about 1% of the U.S. population — simply because they make for an easy and vulnerable political target.

Kristi Hirst, co-founder of the public education advocacy group Our Schools USA, said the Justice Department’s actions amounted to “bullying minors and using taxpayer resources to do so,” and that a “better use of public dollars would be for the Justice Department to affirm that all kids possess civil rights, and protect the very students being targeted today.”

The “pattern or practice” investigation is the second such investigation that Dhillon’s office has launched in the L.A. region in as many months. It’s also investigating Los Angeles County over its process for issuing gun permits.

Essayli’s separate decision to back the Riverside lawsuit adds another wrinkle to an already complicated case.

The group Save Girls’ Sports is suing over the inclusion of a transgender athlete in a girls’ track meet in October, a decision they allege unfairly bumped a cisgender girl from competition, and over a decision by high school officials to block students from wearing shirts that read, “IT’S COMMON SENSE. XX [does not equal] XY,” a reference to the different chromosome pairings of biological females and males.

Julianne Fleischer, an attorney with Advocates for Faith & Freedom who is representing Save Girls’ Sports, said Wednesday that Essayli’s decision to weigh in on behalf of the group was welcome.

“This case has always been about common sense, fairness, and the plain meaning of the law,” Fleischer said in a statement. “Girls’ sports were never meant to be a social experiment. They exist so that girls can win, lead and thrive on a level playing field.”

It was unclear how the case would be affected by Essayli’s interest.

The state and school district are asking for the lawsuit to be dismissed. A hearing is scheduled next month.

Essayli, formerly a state Assembly member from Riverside County, made his name in politics in part by attacking what he has called the “woke” policies of California’s liberal majority in Sacramento. Shortly before he was appointed as U.S. attorney last month, other California lawmakers blocked a bill he introduced that would have banned transgender athletes from female sports.

Hernandez, the mother of the targeted Jurupa Valley athlete, said Trump and other officials were bullying children by “weaponizing misinformation and fear instead of embracing truth, compassion and respect,” and asked Trump to reconsider.

“I respectfully request you to open your heart and mind to learn about the LGBTQ+ community,” she said, “not from the voices of fear or division, but from the people living these lives with courage, love and dignity.”

NPR and three of its member stations filed suit in federal court Tuesday against President Trump‘s White House over the president’s executive order to block funding for public media.

Trump’s order called for an end to government dollars for the Corp. for Public Broadcasting, the taxpayer-backed entity that provides funding to NPR and PBS. He called the outlets “left wing propaganda.”

The suit says the May 1 action by Trump violated the 1st Amendment.

“The Order targets NPR and PBS expressly because, in the President’s view, their news and other content is not ‘fair, accurate, or unbiased,’” the legal brief said, according to an NPR report.

The suit also says that the funding — currently at around $500 million annually — is appropriated by Congress. The allocation is made two years in advance.

“Congress directly authorized and funded CPB to be a private nonprofit corporation wholly independent of the federal government,” Corp. for Public Broadcasting chief Patricia Harrison told NPR in a statement.

Harrison said that the Corp. for Public Broadcasting is not a federal agency subject to the president’s authority.

“The Executive Order is a clear violation of the Constitution and the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and association, and freedom of the press,” NPR President and Chief Executive Katherine Maher said in a statement.

The order is one of a number of attempts by Trump to limit or intimidate institutions he does not agree with. Targets included law firms, universities and media companies such as CBS, which is being sued for $20 billion over a “60 Minutes” interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential campaign.

NPR filed the suit with three public radio outlets, including Denver-based Colorado Public Radio, Aspen Pubic Radio and KSUT which serves the Four Corners region of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah.

Both NPR and PBS have stressed that the bulk of the federal funding they receive goes to stations that provide local news and emergency alerts for their communities.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Sunday that the U.S. will delay implementation of a 50% tariff on goods from the European Union until July 9 to buy time for negotiations with the bloc.

That agreement came after a call Sunday with Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, who had told Trump that she “wants to get down to serious negotiations,” according to the U.S. president.

“I told anybody that would listen, they have to do that,” Trump told reporters Sunday in Morristown, N.J., as he prepared to return to Washington. Von der Leyen, Trump said, vowed to “rapidly get together and see if we can work something out.”

In a social media post Friday, Trump had threatened to impose the 50% tariff on EU goods, asserting that the 27-member bloc had been “very difficult to deal with” on trade and that negotiations were “going nowhere.” Those tariffs would have kicked in starting June 1.

But the call with Von der Leyen appeared to smooth over tensions, at least for now.

“I agreed to the extension — July 9, 2025 — It was my privilege to do so,” Trump said on social media shortly after he spoke with reporters Sunday evening.

Von der Leyen said the EU and the U.S. “share the world’s most consequential and close trade relationship.”

“Europe is ready to advance talks swiftly and decisively,” she said. “To reach a good deal, we would need the time until July 9.”

Kim writes for the Associated Press.

Actions, we know, have consequences. And an apparent Marxist’s cold-blooded murder of two Israeli Embassy staffers in Washington on Wednesday night was the natural and inevitable consequence of a conscientious, years-long campaign to dehumanize Jews and otherize all supporters of the world’s only Jewish state.

Seriously, what did you think was going to happen?

Some of President Trump’s more colorful all-caps and exclamation-mark-filled social media posts evince an impending jackboot, we’re sometimes told. (Hold aside, for now, columnist Salena Zito’s apt 2016 quip about taking Trump seriously but not literally.) Words either have meaning or they don’t. And many left-wing Americans have, for a long time now, argued that they have tremendous meaning. How often, as the concept of the “microaggression” and its campus “safe space” corollary took off last decade, were we told that “words are violence”? (I’ll answer: A lot!)

So are we really not supposed to take seriously the clear calls for Jewish genocide that have erupted on American campuses and throughout American streets since the Hamas pogrom of Oct. 7, 2023? Are we really supposed to believe that chants such as “globalize the intifada,” “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “there is only one solution, intifada revolution” are vague and open to competing interpretations?

That doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

When pro-Israel Jewish American Paul Kessler died after being hit on the head during a clash of protesters in Thousand Oaks on Nov. 5, 2023, that is what “intifada revolution” looks like in practice. When Israeli woman Tzeela Gez was murdered by a jihadist while en route to the hospital to deliver her baby earlier this month, that was what “from the river to the sea” looks like in practice. And when two young Israeli Embassy staffers were executed while leaving an event this week at Washington’s Capital Jewish Museum, that is what “globalize the intifada” looks like in practice.

Really, what did you think was going to happen?

Indeed, it is the easily foreseeable nature of Wednesday night’s slayings that is perhaps the most tragic part of it all. The suspect in the deaths of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim left behind a handy manifesto laying out a clear political motivation. This was not a random drive-by shooting. Hardly. This was a deliberate act — what appears to be an act of domestic terrorism. And the suspect, Elias Rodriguez, has a long history of involvement in far-left activist causes. If the killer intended to target Jews, then the fact that both victims were apparently Christian only underscores the “globalize” part of “globalize the intifada.”

Zito had it right back in 2016: Trump’s social media posts should be taken seriously, not literally. But when it comes to the murderous, genocidal clamoring for Jewish and Israeli blood that has become increasingly ubiquitous ever since the Jews themselves suffered their single bloodiest day since the Third Reich, such anti-Israel and antisemitic words must be taken both seriously and literally.

A previous generation of lawmakers once urged Americans to fight the terrorists “over there” so that they can’t harm us “here.” How quaint! The discomfiting reality in the year 2025 is this: The radicals, both homegrown and foreign-born alike, are already here. There are monsters in our midst.

And those monsters are not limited to jihadists. Domestic terrorists these days come from all backgrounds. The deaths of two Israeli diplomats are yet another reminder (not that we needed it): Politically motivated violence in the contemporary United States is not an equivalent problem on both the left and the right.

In 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins attempted to shoot up the socially conservative Family Research Council because he heard it was “anti-gay.” In 2017, James Hodgkinson shot up the Republican congressional baseball team a few weeks after posting on Facebook that Trump is a “traitor” and threat to “our democracy.” In 2022, Nicholas Roske flew cross-country to try to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and thus prevent Roe vs. Wade from being overturned. Earlier this year, anti-Elon Musk activists burned and looted Teslas — and assaulted Tesla drivers — because of Musk’s Trump administration work with his cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency. And who can forget Luigi Mangione, who is charged in the shooting death of UnitedHealthcare Chief Executive Brian Thompson?

Both “sides” are not culpable here. They just aren’t. Israel supporters in America aren’t out there gunning down people waving the PLO flag. Nor are capitalists out there gunning down socialists.

There is a real darkness out there in certain — increasingly widespread — pockets of the American activist left. Sure, parts of the right are also lost at the moment — but this is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Regardless, the violence must end. And we must stop treating open calls for murder or genocide as morally acceptable “speech.” Let’s pull ourselves back from the brink before more blood is shed.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer

WASHINGTON — President Trump signed executive orders Friday intended to quadruple domestic production of nuclear power within the next 25 years, a goal experts say the United States is highly unlikely to reach.

To speed up the development of nuclear power, the orders grant the U.S. Energy secretary authority to approve advanced reactor designs and projects, taking authority away from the independent safety agency that has regulated the U.S. nuclear industry for five decades.

The order comes as demand for electricity surges amid a boom in energy-hungry data centers and artificial intelligence. Tech companies, venture capitalists, states and others are competing for electricity and straining the nation’s electric grid.

“We’ve got enough electricity to win the AI arms race with China,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said. “What we do in the next five years related to electricity is going to determine the next 50” years in the industry.

Still, it’s unlikely the U.S. could quadruple its nuclear production in the time frame the White House specified. The United States lacks any next-generation reactors operating commercially and only two large reactors have been built from scratch in nearly 50 years. Those two reactors, at a nuclear plant in Georgia, were completed years late and at least $17 billion over budget.

Trump is enthusiastic

At the Oval Office signing, Trump, surrounded by industry executives, called nuclear a “hot industry,” adding, “It’s time for nuclear, and we’re going to do it very big.”

Burgum and other speakers said the industry has stagnated and has been choked by overregulation.

“Mark this day on your calendar. This is going to turn the clock back on over 50 years of overregulation of an industry,’’ said Burgum, who chairs Trump’s newly formed Energy Dominance Council.

The orders would reorganize the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ensure quicker reviews of nuclear projects, including an 18-month deadline for the NRC to act on industry applications. The measures also create a pilot program intended to place three new experimental reactors online by July 4, 2026 — 13 months from now — and invoke the Defense Production Act to allow emergency measures to ensure the U.S. has the reactor fuel needed for a modernized nuclear energy sector.

The NRC is assessing the executive orders and will comply with White House directives, spokesperson Scott Burnell said Friday.

Jacob DeWitte, chief executive of the nuclear energy company Oklo, brought a golf ball to the Oval Office. He told Trump that’s the amount of uranium that can power someone’s needs for their entire life.

“It doesn’t get any better than that,” he said, holding up the ball.

“Very exciting indeed,” Trump said.

Trump has signed a spate of executive orders promoting oil, gas and coal that warm the planet when burned to produce electricity. Nuclear reactors generate electricity without emitting greenhouse gases. Trump said reactors are safe and clean but did not mention climate benefits. Safety advocates warn that nuclear technology still comes with significant risks that other low-carbon energy sources don’t, including the danger of accidents or targeted attacks, and the unresolved question of how to store tens of thousands of tons of hazardous nuclear waste.

The order to reorganize the NRC will include significant staff reductions but is not intended to fire NRC commissioners who lead the agency. David Wright, a former South Carolina elected official and utility commissioner, chairs the five-member panel. His term ends June 30, and it is unclear whether he will be reappointed.

Critics have trepidations

Critics say the White House moves could compromise safety and violate legal frameworks such as the Atomic Energy Act. Compromising the independence of the NRC or encouraging it to be circumvented entirely could weaken the agency and make regulation less effective, said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“Simply put, the U.S. nuclear industry will fail if safety is not made a priority,” he said.

Gregory Jaczko, who led the NRC under President Obama, said Trump’s executive orders look like someone asked an AI chatbot, “How do we make the nuclear industry worse in this country?”

He called the orders a “guillotine to the nation’s nuclear safety system” that will make the country less safe, the industry less reliable and the climate crisis more severe.

A number of countries are speeding up efforts to license and build a new generation of smaller nuclear reactors to meet a surging demand for electricity and supply it carbon-free. Last year, Congress passed legislation that President Biden signed to modernize the licensing of new reactor technologies so they can be built faster.

This month, the power company in Ontario, Canada, began building the first of four small nuclear reactors.

Valar Atomics is a nuclear reactor developer in California. Founder and CEO Isaiah Taylor said nuclear development and innovation in the United States has been slowed by too much red tape, while Russia and China are speeding ahead. He said he’s most excited about the mandate for the Energy Department to speed up the pace of innovation.

The NRC is currently reviewing applications from companies and a utility that want to build small nuclear reactors to begin providing power in the early 2030s. Currently, the NRC expects its reviews to take three years or less.

Tori Shivanandan, chief operating officer of Radiant Nuclear, a California-based startup, said the executive orders mark a “watershed moment” for nuclear power in the U.S., adding that Trump’s support for the advanced nuclear industry will help ensure its success.

Daly and McDermott write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Landmark legislation that would rewrite the tax code and levy steep cuts to programs providing healthcare and food stamps to the poor passed the House early Thursday, a development that was celebrated by President Trump despite the bill facing an uncertain future among Senate Republicans.

The measure, titled the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” would boost funding for border security and the Defense Department, eliminate taxes on tips and overtime, provide a new tax deduction to seniors and renew the 2017 tax cuts passed during the first Trump administration. To pay for those new funding commitments, the bill proposes eliminating green energy tax benefits passed under President Biden, as well as an estimated $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Even still, the bill would add so much money to the debt that Congress may be forced to execute cuts across the board, including hundreds of billions to Medicare, in a process known as sequestration, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The House vote fell along party lines. By opposing the bill, the Trump administration said that Democrats were supporting the largest tax increase on middle-class Americans in decades, a reference to the upcoming expiration of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts at the end of the year.

Democrats, on the other hand, have accused Republicans of voting for the deepest cuts to healthcare in modern times. By creating new barriers to Medicaid coverage through the introduction of work hour requirements, as well as increasing premiums under the Affordable Care Act, the CBO and other nonpartisan organizations estimate up to 14 million Americans could lose their insurance coverage.

Those drastic changes to the healthcare landscape have given pause to several Republican senators.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine has said she is “very wary of cutting Medicaid.” Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said he “can’t support” substantial cuts to Medicaid benefits. And after the vote on Thursday, Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas said that material changes should be expected to the House bill.

“We need to go back through that bill with a fine tooth comb and make it better,” Marshall said in an interview with Newsmax. “I think there’s opportunities in Medicaid to make that bill better, to make sure that we strengthen it, that we preserve it for those who need it most.”

Any Senate rollback of cuts to the Medicaid program could face resistance from the House Freedom Caucus during the reconciliation process. Members of that group, which proclaims a commitment to fiscal conservatism, have called for even deeper cuts to the Medicaid program.

Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, chair of the House Freedom Caucus, voted “present” early Thursday morning, preserving negotiating leverage as the bill makes its way across Capitol Hill.

“I voted to move the bill along in the process for the president,” Harris wrote on social media. “There is still a lot of work to be done in deficit reduction and ending waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicaid program.”

The vote came hours after Trump met with GOP holdouts at the White House. As late as Wednesday afternoon, before meeting with the president, several of those lawmakers were casting doubt on the prospects of the bill’s passage this week, ahead of a Memorial Day deadline set by House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina was dismissive of the Freedom Caucus on Thursday, telling CNN that the cuts they are pushing for would barely make a dent in the national debt.

“You had your chance,” Graham said to the caucus. “Some of these cuts are not real. We’re talking about over a decade — you know, if you do $1.5 trillion, that’s like a percent and a half. So let’s don’t get high on our horse here that we’ve somehow made some major advancement of reducing spending, because we didn’t.”

Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota also mocked the caucus, calling it “rich” for its members to lecture Senate Republicans on fiscal conservatism, “and end up with not that conservative a bill.” The CBO estimates the House legislation would result in a $3.8-trillion increase to the deficit.

If passed, the new work requirements to Medicaid would kick in at the end of 2026, right after the midterm elections. Green energy tax credits would phase out for any project that is not already under construction 60 days after the law comes into force.

The cap on the state and local tax deduction, known as SALT, will increase to $40,000 from $10,000, phasing out for individuals and households making more than $500,000. And while the president campaigned on a promise to eliminate taxes on Social Security, a parliamentary rule precluded Republicans from including a full cut. Instead, the bill proposes an enhanced tax deduction for senior citizens of up to $4,000.

On Truth Social, the president’s social media platform, Trump wrote that the bill is “arguably the most significant piece of Legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country!”

“There is no time to waste,” he added. Johnson, the speaker, has set a goal of sending the bill to the president’s desk by Independence Day.

Trump’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said the president’s team was “suiting up” for negotiations with the Senate now that the bill has passed the House. “We will see how it goes,” she said.

“The ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ is named the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ for a reason, because it is a one big beautiful bill that encompasses just about everything this president could want for the American public. It delivers on so many of his core campaign promises. So surely we want to see those campaign promises signed into law,” Leavitt said. “He’s expecting them to get busy on this bill and send it to his desk as soon as possible.”

The two House Republicans who voted against the bill, Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio, should face primary challenges for their defiance of the president’s directive, Leavitt added.

“What’s the alternative, I would ask those members of Congress. Did they want to see a tax hike? Did they want to see our country go bankrupt? That’s the alternative by them trying to vote no,” she said. “The president believes that the Republican Party needs to be unified.”

The “One Big Beautiful Bill” is one big, ugly mess.

We’ve seen false advertising in naming laws before — the Democrats’ 2022 Inflation Reduction Act jumps to mind. Yet no legislation has been as misbranded as the Republican tax and spending cuts that President Trump, the branding aficionado himself, is pushing along a tortuous path in Congress.

Trump’s appeal to many Americans has always been his purported penchant for “telling it like it is.” But he’s doing the opposite by labeling as the “One Big Beautiful Bill” a behemoth that encompasses just about everything he can’t even try to do by unilateral executive orders — deeper tax cuts, more spending on the military and on his immigration crackdown and, yes, Medicaid cuts. His so-called beauty is a beast so frightening that ratings firm Moody’s saw the details last week, calculated the resulting debt and on Friday downgraded the United States’ sterling credit rating for the first time in more than 100 years. That likely means higher interest costs for the nation’s increased borrowing ahead.

And yet, in another example of the gaslighting at which Trump and his party are so adept, the White House and House Republican leaders dismissed the rebuke of their bill. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said it would spur economic growth — the old, discredited “tax cuts will pay for themselves” argument. Speaker Mike Johnson said the Moody’s downgrade just proved the urgent need to pass the big, beautiful bill with its “historic spending cuts.” Which only proved that Johnson didn’t read Moody’s rationale, explaining that spending cuts would be far exceeded by tax cuts, thereby reducing the government’s revenues and piling up more debt.

The Republican Party, which postures as the fiscally conservative of the two parties despite decades of evidence to the contrary, would add about $4 trillion in debt over the next 10 years if its bill becomes law, according to Moody’s. Other nonpartisan analyses — including from the Congressional Budget Office, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and the Penn Wharton Budget Model of the University of Pennsylvania, similarly project additional debt in the $3-trillion-plus to $5-trillion range, more if the tax cuts are made permanent as Trump and Republicans want.

No surprise: Trump, after all, set a record for the most debt in a single presidential term: $8.4 trillion during Trump 1.0, nearly twice what accrued under his successor, President Biden. Most of Trump’s first-term red ink stemmed from his 2017 tax cuts and spending, which predated the COVID-19 pandemic and the government’s costly response.

“This bill does not add to the deficit,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt insisted to reporters on Monday, showing yet again why such a facile dissembler was chosen to speak for the habitually prevaricating president.

“That’s a joke,” Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky responded.

Worse, it’s a lie.

And no surprise here, either, but Trump’s tariffs — another economic monstrosity that he’s declared “beautiful” — aren’t paying for this bill despite his claims. Yet the president repeated that falsehood on Tuesday (along with others), when he visited the Capitol to strong-arm Republican dissidents, including Massie, into supporting the measure ahead of a House vote. (Inside a closed caucus with House Republicans, the president reportedly called for Massie to be unseated; the Kentuckian remains opposed.)

“The economy is doing great, the stock market is higher now than when I came to office. And we’ve taken in hundreds of billions of dollars in tariff money,” Trump told reporters at the Capitol. Every point a lie.

(This week provided yet more evidence that he’s utterly wrong to keep insisting that foreign countries pay his tariffs, not American consumers. After Walmart, the largest U.S. retailer, said late last week that it would have to raise prices, Trump posted that it should “ ‘EAT THE TARIFFS.’ ” He added: “I’ll be watching, and so will your customers!!!” This after a Walmart exec said that “the magnitude of these increases is more than any retailer can absorb.”)

While details of the budget bill shift as Republican leaders dicker with their dissidents, here’s the ugly general outline, according to Penn Wharton:

Extending and expanding Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, which otherwise expire this year, would cost nearly $4.5 trillion over 10 years, $5.8 trillion if the cuts are permanent. (Mandating that tax cuts expire after a time, as Trump did in 2017, is an old budget gimmick to understate a bill’s cost. The politicians know they’ll just extend the tax breaks, as we’re seeing now.) The bill’s proposed spending increases for the military, immigration enforcement and deportations would cost about $600 billion more.

Spending cuts over 10 years, mostly to Medicaid as well as to Obamacare, food stamps and clean-energy programs, would save about $1.6 trillion. That offsets as little as one-quarter of the cost of Trump’s tax cuts and added spending.

Also, the bill is inequitable. The tax cuts would disproportionately favor corporations and wealthy Americans. Its spending cuts, however, would mostly cost lower- and some middle-income people who benefit from federal health and nutrition programs. Changes to Medicaid, including a work requirement (92% of recipients under 65 already work full or part-time, according to the health research organization KFF), and to Obamacare would leave up to 14 million people without health insurance.

Penn Wharton found that people with household income less than $51,000, for example, would see their after-tax income reduced if the bill becomes law, and the top 0.1% of income-earners would get hundreds of thousands of dollars more over the next 10 years. Beyond that time, Penn Wharton projected, “all future households are worse off” given the long-term impact of spiraling debt and a tattered safety net.

“Don’t f— around with Medicaid,” Trump told Republicans at the Capitol, according to numerous reports. How cynical, given that he was pressuring them to vote for a bill that would do just that.

All of which recalls an acronym that’s popular these days: FAFO.

@jackiekcalmes

TEHRAN — Iran’s top diplomat insisted Wednesday that Tehran will never stop enriching uranium, reinforcing the Islamic Republic’s hard line ahead of a new round of indirect talks with the United States over its fast-advancing nuclear program.

The comments by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi come after multiple rounds of talks between the two nations, including at an expert level over the details of a possible deal. However, none has been reached yet, and American officials, including President Trump, Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, maintain that Iran must give up enrichment — something it didn’t do in its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers.

“I have said it before, and I repeat it again: Uranium enrichment in Iran will continue — with or without an agreement,” Araghchi said, according to state television.

Araghchi added that Iran is “currently reviewing whether to participate in the next round and when to take part” in talks with the United States. Trump’s trip to the Mideast last week delayed any new meeting. Negotiators previously met in Muscat, Oman, and Rome.

Later Wednesday, Oman’s foreign minister announced that the fifth round of indirect talks between Iran and the United States would be held Friday in Rome. Neither Tehran nor Washington has confirmed the meeting or announced whether they will attend. The minister made the comment on social media. Oman has long served as a mediator, facilitating quiet diplomacy amid tensions over Iran’s nuclear program and regional security.

“We have never abandoned diplomacy. We will always be present at the negotiating table, and the main reason for our presence is to defend the rights of the Iranian people,” Araghchi said. “We stand against excessive demands and rhetoric at the table.”

Araghchi’s remarks came a day after Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said he didn’t expect the negotiations to produce a deal.

“I don’t think nuclear talks with the U.S. will bring results. I don’t know,” Khamenei said.

The talks seek to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of some of the crushing economic sanctions the U.S. has imposed on the Islamic Republic, closing in on half a century of enmity.

Trump has repeatedly threatened to unleash airstrikes targeting Iran’s program if a deal isn’t reached. Iranian officials increasingly warn that they could pursue a nuclear weapon with their stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels. Meanwhile, Israel has threatened to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities on its own if it feels threatened, further worsening tensions in the Mideast already spiked by the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip.

Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers capped Tehran’s enrichment level at 3.67% and reduced its uranium stockpile to 661 pounds. That level is enough for nuclear power plants, but far below weapons-grade levels of 90%.

Since the nuclear deal collapsed in 2018 with Trump’s unilateral withdrawal of the U.S. from the accord, Iran has abandoned all limits on its program and enriched uranium to up to 60% purity — a short, technical step from weapons-grade levels. There have also been a series of attacks at sea and on land in recent years, stemming from the tensions even before the Israel-Hamas war began.

Vahdat writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Gabe Levin and Jon Gambrell in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has accepted a gifted Boeing 747 aircraft from Qatar for President Trump to use as Air Force One, the Pentagon said Wednesday.

The Defense Department will “work to ensure proper security measures” on the aircraft to make it safe for use by the president, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said. He added that the plane was accepted “in accordance with all federal rules and regulations.”

Trump has defended the gift, which came up during his recent Middle East trip, as a way to save tax dollars.

“Why should our military, and therefore our taxpayers, be forced to pay hundreds of millions of Dollars when they can get it for FREE,” Trump posted on his social media site during the trip.

Others, however, have raised concerns about the aircraft being a violation of the Constitution’s prohibition on foreign gifts. They also have noted the need to retrofit the plane to meet security requirements, which would be costly and take time.

Trump was asked about the move Wednesday while he was meeting in the Oval Office with South Africa’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa. “They are giving the United States Air Force a jet,” Trump said.

The Republican president has presented no national security imperative for a swift upgrade rather than waiting for Boeing to finish new Air Force One jets that have been in the works for years.

Baldor writes for the Associated Press.

The United States and China are locked in a standoff with no resolution in sight. The U.S. wants to reshore manufacturing, and China wants to sell its manufactured products into the American market. It will take a creative solution to overcome this impasse, but it’s very possible.

President Trump himself has already previewed what a winning formula could look like. During his 2024 campaign, he repeatedly pledged to lure other countries’ factories to the United States. At a rally in Michigan, he said: “China has to build plants here and hire our workers. When I’m back in the White House, the way they will sell their product in America is to build it in America. They have to build it in America, and they have to use you people to build it.”

When China began embracing a market economy in the 1970s, its leaders made a similar demand to American companies. In order to get access to the Chinese market, American firms would have to manufacture in China, hire Chinese workers and teach the Chinese the underlying technology. But times have changed. China is no longer America’s pupil. When it comes to automobile and battery manufacturing, Chinese companies are years ahead of their American competition. It’s time for us to learn from them.

Gotion Inc., an advanced Chinese battery manufacturer, is currently building two plants in the United States. The Gotion plants in Michigan and Illinois together will employ 5,000 American workers and also train American engineers in the latest lithium battery technology. CATL, another Chinese battery company, is looking to build factories in partnership with American automakers. Their proposed factory in Michigan, a joint venture with Ford, would employ 2,500 Americans.

These companies are attempting to build here because they want access to the U.S. market. By building in the U.S., they can avoid tariffs and more easily sell their batteries to American companies. In return, the U.S. gets good-paying jobs, the best batteries in the world and a more advanced manufacturing sector.

But instead of embracing this as a victory, Republicans have brutally attacked both Gotion and CATL because they’re Chinese. For them, every company from China is a national security threat, even if there’s no specific evidence against them. According to the hawks, merely being Chinese-owned means the company is part of a covert operation directed by the Chinese government. Evidence to the contrary is simply ignored.

In Gotion’s case, they’re a global company whose largest shareholder is Volkswagen; the U.S. operations are run by American executives; and the U.S. plants will be staffed by American workers. In CATL’s case, it won’t own the U.S. plant it helps build, but instead will be licensing technology to Ford, which will own the plant. But when it comes to China, such inconvenient facts are thrown out the window because politicians need to score political points.

The China bashing has become so prevalent that Trump has had to clarify his position. At a recent Cabinet meeting, Trump said that he welcomes Chinese investment in the United States, and that he doesn’t understand why some people have the impression that he doesn’t. Of course, people have that impression because his underlings have been working overtime to prevent Chinese companies from investing here. Not only has Trump not slapped them down, but also he contradicted his own position by signing an executive order that makes it harder for the U.S. and China to invest in each other.

If this current trajectory continues, there won’t be more Gotions or CATLs announcing investments in America. Trump needs to make it clear that victory in the trade war includes Chinese manufacturers setting up shop here. If he doesn’t, his staff may continue to sabotage what could be openings to defuse tensions with China.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has wisely called for an economic rebalancing with China. That will require adopting a rational approach, not one based on paranoia. It’s time to turn this standoff into a victory.

James Bacon was a special assistant to the president during the first Trump administration.

WASHINGTON — House Republicans are pushing to vote on their multitrillion-dollar tax breaks package as soon as Wednesday, grinding out last-minute deal-making to shore up wavering GOP support and deliver on President Trump’s top legislative priority.

Trump himself had instructed the Republican majority to quit arguing and get it done, his own political influence on the line. But GOP leaders worked late into the night to convince skeptical Republicans who have problems on several fronts, including worries that it will pile onto the nation’s $36-trillion debt.

A fresh analysis from the Congressional Budget Office said the tax provisions would increase the federal deficit by $3.8 trillion over the decade, while the changes to Medicaid, food stamps and other services would tally $1 trillion in reduced spending. The lowest-income households in the U.S. would see their resources drop, while the highest ones would see a boost, the CBO said.

Republicans hunkered down at the Capitol through the night for one last committee hearing processing changes to the package. Democrats immediately motioned to adjourn, but the vote failed on party lines.

“President Trump’s ‘one, big, beautiful bill’ is going to require one, big, beautiful vote,” said Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). “We are going to get this done.”

It’s a make-or-break moment for the president and his party in Congress, who have invested much of their political capital during the crucial first few months of Trump’s return to the White House on this package. If the House Republicans fall in line with the president, overcoming unified Democratic objections, the package would next go to the Senate.

The package comes at a daunting time as the U.S. economy faces uncertainty. Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Republicans are trying to “quickly jam this unpopular legislation through the House because they know that the longer they wait, the more will come to light about this cruel and unconscionable bill.”

At its core, the sprawling 1,000-plus-page bill is centered on extending the tax breaks approved during Trump’s first term in 2017, while adding new ones he campaigned on during the 2024 presidential campaign.

To make up for some of the lost revenue, the Republicans are focused on spending cuts to federal safety net programs and a massive rollback of green energy tax breaks from the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act.

Additionally, the package tacks on $350 billion in new spending — with about $150 billion going to the Pentagon, including for the president’s new “ Golden Dome” defense shield, and the rest for Trump’s mass deportation and border security agenda.

The package title carries Trump’s own words, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”

As Trump promised voters on the tax front, the package proposes there would be no taxes on tips for certain workers, including those in some service industries; automobile loan interest; or some overtime pay.

There would also be an increase to the standard income tax deduction, to $32,000 for joint filers, and a boost to the child tax credit to $2,500. There would be an enhanced deduction, of $4,000, for seniors of certain income levels, to help defray taxes on Social Security income.

To cut spending, the package would impose new work requirements for many people who receive health care through Medicaid, with able-bodied adults without dependents needing to fulfill 80 hours a month on a job or in other community activities.

Similarly, those who receive food stamps through the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, known as SNAP, would also face new work requirements.

Older Americans up to age 64, rather than 54, who are able-bodied and without dependents would need to work or engage in the community programs for 80 hours a month. Additionally, some parents of children older than 7 years old would need to fulfill the work requirements; under current law, the requirement comes after children are 18.

Republicans said they want to root out waste, fraud and abuse in the federal programs.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated 8.6 million fewer people would have health insurance with the various changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. It also said 3 million fewer people each month would have SNAP benefits.

Republicans have been racing to finish up the package by Memorial Day, a deadline imposed by Johnson as he tries to overcome objections within his own ranks.

Conservatives are insisting on quicker, steeper cuts to federal programs to offset the costs of the trillions of dollars in lost tax revenue. GOP leaders have sped up the start date of the Medicaid work requirements from 2029 to 2027.

At the same time, more moderate and centrist lawmakers are wary of the changes to Medicaid that could result in lost health care for their constituents. Others are worried the phaseout of the renewable energy tax breaks will impede businesses using them to invest in green energy projects in many states.

Plus, a core group of lawmakers from New York, California and other high-tax states want a bigger state and local tax deduction, called SALT, for their voters back home.

As it stands, the bill would triple what’s currently a $10,000 cap on the state and local tax deduction, increasing it to $30,000 for joint filers with incomes up to $400,000 a year. They have proposed a deduction of $62,000 for single filers and $124,000 for joint filers.

Trump has been pushing hard for Republicans to unite behind the bill, which has been uniquely shaped in his image, and he said after meeting with House lawmakers privately Tuesday at the Capitol that anyone who doesn’t support the bill would be a “fool.”

But it’s not at all clear that Trump, who was brought in to seal the deal, changed minds.

One of the conservative Republicans, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, said afterward he’s still a no vote.

“We’re still a long ways away,” said Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), chair of the House Freedom Caucus.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog group, estimates that the House bill is shaping up to add roughly $3.3 trillion to the debt over the next decade.

Mascaro, Freking, Askarinam and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump implored House Republicans at the Capitol to drop their fights over his big tax-cut bill and get it done, using encouraging words but also the hardened language of politics over the multitrillion-dollar package that is at risk of collapsing before planned votes this week.

During the more than hourlong session Tuesday, Trump warned Republicans to not touch Medicaid with cuts, and he told New York lawmakers to end their fight for a bigger local tax deduction, reversing his own campaign promise. The president, heading into the meeting, called himself a “cheerleader” for the Republican Party and praised Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). But he also criticized at least one of the GOP holdouts as a “grandstander” and warned that anyone who doesn’t support the bill would be a “fool.”

“We have unbelievable unity,” Trump said as he exited. “I think we’re going to get everything we want.”

The president arrived at a pivotal moment. Negotiations are slogging along and it’s not at all clear the package, with its sweeping tax breaks and cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy programs, has the support needed from the House’s slim Republican majority. Lawmakers are also being asked to add some $350 billion to Trump’s border security, deportation and defense agenda.

Inside, he spoke privately in what one lawmaker called the president’s “weaving” style, and took questions.

The president also made it clear he’s losing patience with the various holdout factions of the House Republicans, according to a senior White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private meeting.

But Trump disputed that notion as well as reports that he used an expletive in warning against cutting Medicaid. Instead, he said afterward, “That was a meeting of love.” He received several standing ovations, Republicans said.

Yet it was not at all clear that Trump, who was brought in to seal the deal, changed minds.

“We’re still a long ways away,” said Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), the chair of the House Freedom Caucus.

Conservatives are insisting on quicker, steeper cuts to federal programs to offset the costs of the trillions of dollars in lost tax revenue. At the same time, a core group of lawmakers from New York and other high-tax states wants bigger tax breaks for their voters back home. Worries about piling onto the nation’s $36-trillion debt are stark.

With House Democrats lined up against the package, calling it a giveaway to the wealthy at the expense of safety net programs, GOP leaders have almost no votes to spare. A key committee hearing is set for the middle of the night Tuesday in hopes of a House floor vote by Wednesday afternoon.

“They literally are trying to take healthcare away from millions of Americans at this very moment in the dead of night,” said House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York.

Trump has been pushing hard for Republicans to unite behind the bill, the president’s signature domestic policy initiative in Congress.

Asked about one of the conservative Republicans, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Trump lashed out.

“I think he is a grandstander, frankly,” the president continued. “I think he should be voted out of office.”

But Massie, a renegade who wears a clock lapel pin that tallies the nation’s debt load, said afterward he’s still a no vote.

Also unmoved was Rep. Mike Lawler, one of the New York Republicans leading the fight for a bigger state and local tax deduction, known as SALT: “As it stands right now, I do not support the bill. Period.”

The sprawling 1,116-page package carries Trump’s title, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” as well as his campaign promises to extend the tax breaks approved during his first term while adding new ones, including no taxes on tips, automobile loan interest and Social Security.

Yet, the price tag is rising and lawmakers are wary of the votes ahead, particularly as the economy teeters with uncertainty.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog group, estimates that the House bill is shaping up to add roughly $3.3 trillion to the debt over the next decade.

Republicans criticizing the measure argued that the bill’s new spending and tax cuts are front-loaded, while the measures to offset the cost are back-loaded.

In particular, the conservative Republicans are looking to speed up the new work requirements that Republicans want to enact for able-bodied participants in Medicaid. They had been proposed to start Jan. 1, 2029, but Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said on CNBC that work requirements for some Medicaid beneficiaries would begin in early 2027.

At least 7.6 million fewer people are expected to have health insurance under the initial Medicaid changes, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said last week.

Republican holdouts are also looking to more quickly halt green energy tax breaks, which had been approved as part of the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act, and are now being used for renewable energy projects across the nation.

But for every change Johnson considers to appease the hard-right conservatives, he risks losing support from more traditional and centrist Republicans. Many have signed letters protesting deep cuts to Medicaid and food assistance programs and the rolling back of clean energy tax credits.

At its core, the sprawling legislative package permanently extends the existing income tax cuts and bolsters the standard deduction, increasing it to $32,000 for joint filers, and the child tax credit to $2,500.

The New Yorkers are fighting for a larger state and local tax deduction beyond the bill’s proposal. As it stands, the bill would triple what’s currently a $10,000 cap on the state and local tax deduction, increasing it to $30,000 for joint filers with incomes up to $400,000 a year. They have proposed a deduction of $62,000 for single filers and $124,000 for joint filers.

Trump, who had campaigned on fully reinstating the unlimited SALT deduction, now appears to be satisfied with the proposed compromise, arguing it only benefits “all the Democratic” states.

If the bill passes the House this week, it would move to the Senate, where Republicans are also eyeing changes.

Mascaro, Freking, Askarinam and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press. AP writers Darlene Superville and Seung Min Kim contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Democratic senators sparred Tuesday over the Trump administration’s foreign policies, including on Ukraine and Russia, the Middle East and Latin America, as well as the slashing of the U.S. foreign assistance budget and refugee admissions.

At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, his first since being confirmed on the first day of President Trump’s inauguration, former Florida Sen. Rubio defended the administration’s decisions to his onetime colleagues.

He said “America is back” and claimed four months of foreign policy achievements, even as many of them remain frustratingly inconclusive. Among them are the resumption of nuclear talks with Iran, efforts to bring Russia and Ukraine into peace talks, and efforts to end the war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas.

He praised agreements with El Salvador and other Latin American countries to accept migrant deportees, saying “secure borders, safe communities and zero tolerance for criminal cartels are once again the guiding principles of our foreign policy.” He also rejected assertions that massive cuts to his department’s budget would hurt America’s standing abroad. Instead, he said the cuts would actually improve American status and the United States’ reputation internationally.

Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), the committee’s chair, opened the hearing with praise for Trump’s changes and spending cuts and welcomed what he called the administration’s promising nuclear talks with Iran. Risch also noted what he jokingly called “modest disagreement” with Democratic lawmakers, who used Tuesday’s hearing to confront Rubio about Trump administration moves that they say are weakening the United States’ influence globally.

Yet Democrats on the Senate committee, including ranking member Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Tim Kaine of Virginia, and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, took sharp issue with Rubio’s presentation.

Shaheen argued that the Trump administration has “eviscerated six decades of foreign policy investments” and given China openings around the world.

“I urge you to stand up to the extremists of the administration,” Shaheen said. Other Democrats excoriated the administration for its suspension of the refugee admissions program, particularly while allowing white Afrikaners from South Africa to enter the country.

In two particularly contentious exchanges, Kaine and Van Hollen demanded answers on the decision to suspend overall refugee admissions but to exempt Afrikaners based on what they called “specious” claims that they have been subjected to massive discrimination by the South African government. Rubio gave no ground.

“The United States has a right to pick and choose who we allow into the United States,” he said. “If there is a subset of people that are easier to vet, who we have a better understanding of who they are and what they’re going to do when they come here, they’re going to receive preference.”

He added: “There are a lot of sad stories around the world, millions and millions of people around the world. It’s heartbreaking, but we cannot assume millions and millions of people around the world. No country can.”

On the Middle East, Rubio said the administration has continued to push ahead with attempts to broker a ceasefire in Gaza and to promote stability in Syria.

He stressed the importance of U.S. engagement with Syria, saying that otherwise, he fears the interim government there could be weeks or months away from a “potential collapse and a full-scale civil war of epic proportions.”

Rubio’s comments addressed Trump’s pledge to lift sanctions on Syria’s new transitional government, which is led by a former militant chief who led the overthrow of the country’s longtime oppressive leader, Bashar Assad, late last year.

Lee and Knickmeyer write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has agreed to pay just under $5 million to settle a wrongful death lawsuit that Ashli Babbitt’s family filed over her shooting by an officer during the U.S. Capitol riot, according to a person with knowledge of the settlement. The person insisted on anonymity to discuss with the Associated Press terms of a settlement that have not been made public.

The settlement would resolve the $30-million federal lawsuit that Babbitt’s estate filed last year in Washington, D.C. On Jan. 6, 2021, a Capitol police officer shot Babbitt as she tried to climb through the broken window of a barricaded door leading to the Speaker’s Lobby.

The officer who shot her was cleared of wrongdoing by the U.S. Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia, which concluded that he acted in self-defense and in the defense of members of Congress. The Capitol Police also cleared the officer.

Settlement terms haven’t been disclosed in public court filings. On May 2, lawyers for Babbitt’s estate and the Justice Department told a federal judge that they had reached a settlement in principle but were still working out the details before a final agreement could be signed.

Justice Department spokespeople and two attorneys for the Babbitt family didn’t immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

Babbitt, a 35-year-old Air Force veteran from San Diego, was unarmed when she was shot by the officer. The lawsuit alleges that the plainclothes officer failed to de-escalate the situation and did not give her any warnings or commands before opening fire.

The suit also accused the Capitol Police of negligence, claiming the department should have known that the officer was “prone to behave in a dangerous or otherwise incompetent manner.”

“Ashli posed no threat to the safety of anyone,” the lawsuit said.

The officer said in a televised interview that he fired as a “last resort.” He said he didn’t know if the person jumping through the window was armed when he pulled the trigger.

Thousands of people stormed the Capitol after President Trump spoke to a crowd of supporters at his Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally near the White House. More than 100 police officers were injured in the attack.

In January, on his first day back in the White House, Trump pardoned, commuted the prison sentences or ordered the dismissal of charges for all of the more than 1,500 people charged with crimes in the riot.

Tucker and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press. AP writer Alanna Durkin Richer contributed to this report.

News and social media feeds inundate us with dramatic scenes of immigration policing. Viral videos of immigrant mothers picked up on sidewalks near their homes, news accounts of ICE agents showing up in Los Angeles schools and social media posts of U.S. citizens detained by government agents, all create a frightening spectacle. President Trump fuels the fear by trolling immigrant communities with sinister Valentine cards, dangling self-deportation incentives and implementing a chaotic enforcement strategy that ignores attempts at judicial oversight. Amid all this, many look to state and local leaders for calm, reassurance and support.

In California, there remains a simple and consistent response. No matter who, when, where or how you ask, a commanding majority of registered voters in the Golden State support a path to citizenship for those in the state without proper documents. In other words, across the partisan aisle, and across all kinds of different groups and places, most voters see a path to citizenship as a much-needed policy fix, even now.

In August of 2024, a few months before the presidential election, the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies Poll asked more than 4,000 voters across the state whether they would support or oppose a “path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who come forward, are up to date on their taxes, and pass a background check.”

At that time, the Harris and Trump campaigns were in full swing. Harris’ team had already held a few news conferences at the border, insinuating that increased border security would be top of mind in her administration. Meanwhile, Trump continued his usual discourse about immigrants, once infamously contending that immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country.” It was difficult to see who, if anyone, felt sympathy toward community members who’d entered the country without authorization or overstayed a visa, despite the fact that many of them had raised new generations of American citizens and contributed to public coffers and local job markets.

But even back in August, 80% of California registered voters who answered the poll supported a path to citizenship. This included close to 60% of polled Republicans, 75% of independents and even 56% of those who intended to vote for Trump. It also included 75% of those who earned a high school degree or less, 80% of those who earned a college degree or more, 80% of women, 78% of men, 75% of homeowners and 84% of those under 40. Among the strongest supporters were Democrats, with 91% support, as well as middle- and high-income earners, and those who lived in the Bay Area. Across most categories, a commanding majority of California voters expressed support for a pathway to citizenship.

But that was then, before the onslaught. Before the viral videos, the renditions to El Salvador, the offer of cash to self-deport. One could argue that in those before-times, perhaps voters were somehow more sympathetic to immigrants because they were distracted by other issues, like the price of eggs and groceries or broader inflation issues. And perhaps some might not have believed that Trump would actually follow through on his attacks on immigrant communities.

So in early May the Berkeley IGS Poll asked survey respondents again about their support for a path to citizenship. This time we polled more than 6,000 registered California voters and we inserted a small survey experiment. We were curious about whether respondents’ support in August had been so strong because the question they were asked included language about a “background check,” an idea that might have primed them to think about “good” and “bad” immigrants and may have inadvertently linked unauthorized status to crime. So for half of all respondents in May, we asked the same question again, but for the second half of respondents, we omitted this language, simply asking if they would support or oppose a “path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are working or going to school and are up to date on their taxes.”

Our survey found no statistically significant differences between the two groups. The vast majority of California voters think a path to citizenship is simply the right thing to do, background check or not.

Moreover, we found virtually no differences from August to May. Eighty percent of registered voters this month, including close to 60% of Republicans, continued to support a path to citizenship. Somewhere between 70% and 85% of every demographic, including respondents under 40, those over 65, those of different racial groups, those in unions, those that rent their homes, those that own their homes, men, women, those in the Central Valley, Los Angeles County, the Inland Empire and even those on the far North Coast all expressed support for a path to citizenship. The consistency is resounding.

If you’re trying to make sense of the bombast and the whirlwind of executive and law enforcement actions directed at immigrants, remember the one thing that unites a commanding majority of California voters, almost without regard to who we are and where we live, an understanding that good policy is practical policy: Undocumented community members deserve relief.

State and local leaders do not design federal immigration policy, but they should remember this poll data as they make decisions about how to support us all. If it were put to a vote, an overwhelming majority of Californians would support immigration reform, not mass deportation.

G. Cristina Mora and Nicholas Vargas are professors at UC Berkeley affiliated with the Institute of Governmental Studies, where Mora serves as co-director.

Eleven minutes into the June 27 presidential debate, CNN anchor Dana Bash slipped a note to her colleague Jake Tapper after President Biden gave a rambling, incoherent answer.

“He just lost the election,” she wrote.

The event at the network’s Atlanta studios — recounted in Tapper’s and Axios correspondent Alex Thompson’s new book, “Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again” — turned out to be the most consequential presidential debate in history.

Negative reaction to Biden’s alarmingly disastrous performance led him to abandon his campaign three weeks later and Vice President Kamala Harris to take his place on the 2024 Democratic ticket. The election against President Trump was less than four months away.

Biden’s mental and physical decline had long been the subject of speculation at that point. The unraveling of the then-81-year-old incumbent president in front of an audience of 51 million TV viewers made his diminished capacity undeniable.

“It was just the painful realization that the White House had been lying to everyone, including likely, in many ways, to themselves,” Tapper said in a recent Zoom conversation from his home in Washington, D.C. “As bad as it was on TV, it was worse in person.”

CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash at the first 2024 presidential debate in Atlanta on June 27.

(Austin Steele / CNN)

The debate meltdown and its aftermath prompted Tapper to join forces with Thompson for an investigative deep dive into Biden’s deteriorating condition and how family and staff protected him from scrutiny until it was no longer possible to hide.

“Original Sin” is rife with examples of Biden forgetting the names of friends and associates he’s known for years, most notably actor George Clooney at a Hollywood fundraiser. At the same event, former President Obama led a dazed-looking Biden offstage.

Tapper and Thompson give a detailed account of Biden’s October 2023 interview with special counsel Robert Hur, who investigated whether the former president was in illegal possession of classified material.

Biden frequently wandered off topic during his testimony and failed to recall dates of key moments of his life, such as the year his son Beau died. Hur declined to prosecute Biden, calling him a “well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory” in his report. Hur was hammered by Democratic critics who called him cruel and ageist.

There were private discussions among aides about Biden using a wheelchair if he were elected to a second term. The staff went through machinations to minimize the appearance of Biden’s physical challenges, even enlisting director Steven Spielberg to coach Biden for his 2024 State of the Union address.

Tapper and Thompson tie the stories together in a way that reads like a horror movie script — you know what’s coming and there’s nothing you can do about it.

“We were just lied to over and over again,” Tapper said.

Their book has already generated a national debate about whether the White House deceived the public about the president’s condition and how Biden’s late exit from the race undermined the Democratic Party’s chances of stopping a second term for President Trump.

The discussion intensified after Sunday’s announcement that Biden was diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer.

The immediate response of right-wing commentators to the book’s revelations has been “we told you so,” along with accusations that the mainstream media was complicit in a White House cover-up of the president’s health issues.

Tapper anticipated the reaction. He said 99% of what is reported in the book was discovered after the election.

“If I learned about any of these stories in 2022, 2023 or 2024, I would have reported them in a second,” he said. “But I don’t have subpoena power.”

Tapper believes conservatives were proven correct in their harsh and at times tactless assessments of Biden’s condition, which clearly worsened in 2023 after his son Hunter faced the possibility of a prison sentence when a plea deal on tax and gun charges fell apart.

“They were right and that should be acknowledged,” Tapper said. “At the same time, saying that the president’s brain has turned to applesauce is not journalism. It’s punditry.”

Although there is plenty of footage showing Biden’s memory lapses and senior moments, Tapper noted there were few deeply reported stories on the extent of the president’s condition. Biden was surrounded by family members and longtime loyalists who were effective at deflecting and dismissing the inquiries as partisan attacks.

Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy was persistent in raising the issue of Biden’s health in the White House briefing room and former Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was persistent in shutting him down, suggesting he was spreading disinformation.

“They weren’t only lying to journalists, they were lying to everybody,” Tapper said. “People would do reporting and all the great Democratic sources that you could rely on for candor would say, ‘No, we’re told that he’s fine.’ And I think that they all either believed it or had no other facts.”

Along with Thompson’s work for Axios, the most detailed report on Biden’s frailty and memory lapses came in June 2024 from Wall Street Journal reporters Siobhan Hughes and Annie Linskey. The highly respected Washington journalists were roundly criticized by progressive commentators for depending on unnamed sources in the report, titled “Behind Closed Doors, Biden Shows Signs of Slipping.” CNN’s own Reliable Sources newsletter dismissed the piece, saying, “The Wall Street Journal owes its readers — and the public — better.”

Tapper said Hughes and Linskey “should be heralded as heroes” and agreed that the Washington press corps failed to aggressively pursue the Biden health story. But it didn’t help that loyalty to Biden kept potential whistleblowers in line.

“I do primarily think that the people who were lying, or the people who knew the truth but were fearful, are the ones that could’ve prevented this disaster much more so than those of us in the news media,” Tapper said. “We’re only as good as our sources.”

Tapper and Thompson rely largely on unnamed sources in “Original Sin.” Among the 200 people they talked to are Democratic Party insiders and four cabinet secretaries. While many Democrats are still reluctant to go on the record about what they knew about Biden and when they knew it, the floodgate of anecdotes opened after the election.

“I have never experienced the ability to get behind the scenes in so many different rooms as for these recountings as I was for this book,” Tapper said. “I felt like people needed to get this off their chest. It was almost like they were unburdening themselves.”

Many of the sources expressed regret that they did not speak up sooner. Tapper said he and his co-author maintained a high bar for what they used.

“If there was stuff that we were not 100% sure about, we didn’t put it in the book,” he said. “There are stories, really good ones, that had one source and we said, ‘It’s not good enough.’”

In its only response to the book thus far, the Biden camp has asserted that the former president’s condition did not impair his ability to execute his duties in the White House.

“We continue to await anything that shows where Joe Biden had to make a presidential decision or where national security was threatened or where he was unable to do his job. In fact, the evidence points to the opposite — he was a very effective president.”

Tapper and Thompson say in the book that they found no instances where Biden was unable to discharge his duties as president. They write that even most of his critics interviewed for the book “attest to his ability to make sound decisions, if on his own schedule.”

Tapper believes that the effort of family and his longtime staff members to hide Biden’s condition deprived the Democratic Party of the chance to determine if its chances were better with another candidate, who would have benefited from more time to mount a campaign against Trump.

“President Biden knows what he was going through,” Tapper said. “Jill Biden knows what he’s going through. They hid this. It’s still amazing to me that they were actually arguing that he could do this job for four more years.

“I’m proud of the book that Alex and I wrote,” Tapper added. “I’m proud of the reporting. But I’d rather that this hadn’t happened.”

Asked if the Biden’s actions amounted to a medical Watergate, Tapper said it did “in the fact that there was a horrible cover-up of something that wasn’t technically a crime, but you could argue morally it was.”

President Trump is very much still hung up on the star power that boosted former Vice President Kamala Harris’ ultimately unsuccessful campaign.

In a pair of posts shared to his Truth Social platform Sunday night and Monday morning, Trump criticized several celebrities who publicly endorsed Harris in her months-long bid. Among the stars fueling the former “Apprentice” host’s ire were Beyoncé, Bruce Springsteen, Oprah and Bono. In his caps-lock-laden tirades, Trump accused the Harris camp of illegally paying Springsteen, Beyoncé and other stars to appear at campaign events and throw their support behind the Biden-era VP.

“I am going to call for a major investigation into this matter,” Trump wrote on Sunday, before accusing Harris and her team of paying for endorsements “under the guise of paying for entertainment.”

Beyoncé, Springsteen and the other stars singled out by Trump each touted their support for Harris during various stops on her campaign trail. The “Alien Superstar” singer backed Harris when the candidate stopped by the pop star’s home state of Texas in late October. The Boss campaigned for Harris in Georgia that same week.

Trump shared his first post, which also accused Harris of artificially beefing up “her sparse crowds” and criticized “these unpatriotic ‘entertainers,’” Sunday at around 10:30 p.m. Clearly, he could not shake off his gripes after a night’s rest because on Monday morning, he doubled down.

Monday at 6:11 a.m., Trump further slammed Beyoncé, citing unidentified “news reports” that alleged the Grammy winner was paid $11 million to endorse his opponent: “AN ILLEGAL ELECTION SCAM AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL.” A representative for Beyoncé did not immediately respond on Monday to The Times’ request for comment.

He said the stars he named, “AND, PERHAPS, MANY OTHERS, HAVE A LOT OF EXPLAINING TO DO!!!”

Trump — who has the backing of musicians including Kid Rock and Billy Ray Cyrus — last week also aimed at Taylor Swift, suggesting in a Truth Social post on Friday that the “Cruel Summer” singer’s popularity has declined since he declared “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT” in September 2024. Swift publicly endorsed Harris for president.

The president railed against the music stars after his four-day visit to the Middle East. . When he returned to Washington on Friday, Trump also shared his opinions on “Highly Overrated Bruce Springsteen,” who criticized the “incompetent and treasonous administration” during a May 14 concert in Manchester, England. “This dried out ‘prune’ of a rocker (his skin is all atrophied!) ought to KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT until he gets back into the Country, that’s just ‘standard fare,’” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

“Then we’ll all see how it goes for him!” he added.

The “Born in the USA” rocker fired back at Trump on Saturday. “In my home, they’re persecuting people for their right to free speech and voicing their dissent. That’s happening now,” Springsteen said.

A transcript of Springsteen’s full monologue, an introduction to “My City of Ruins,” can be found on his website.

WASHINGTON — A humanities federation and a state council have filed a federal lawsuit seeking to reverse local funding cuts made by Trump advisor Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Portland, Ore., by the Federation of State Humanities Councils and the Oregon Council for the Humanities, names DOGE, its acting administrator, Amy Gleason, and the NEH among the defendants.

The plaintiffs ask the court to “stop this imminent threat to our nation’s historic and critical support of the humanities by restoring funding appropriated by Congress.” It notes the “disruption and attempted destruction, spearheaded by DOGE,” of a partnership between the state and the federal government to support the humanities.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday, maintains that DOGE and the National Endowment for the Humanities exceeded their authority in terminating funding mandated by Congress.

DOGE shut down the funding and laid off more than 80% of the staff at the NEH in April as part of an executive order signed by President Trump.

The humanities is just one of many areas that have been affected as Trump’s Republican administration has targeted cultural establishments including the Smithsonian Institution, the Institute of Museum and Library Services and the National Endowment of the Arts. The moves are part of Trump’s goals to downsize the federal government and end initiatives seen as promoting diversity, equity and inclusion, which he calls “discrimination.”

The humanities groups’ lawsuit said DOGE brought the core work of the humanities councils “to a screeching halt” this spring when it terminated its grant program.

The filing is the most recent lawsuit filed by humanities groups and historical, research and library associations to try to stop funding cuts and the dissolution of federal agencies and organizations.

The funding freeze for the humanities comes when state councils and libraries have been preparing programming for the summer and beginning preparations for celebrations meant to commemorate next year’s 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

Requests for comment Friday from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the White House were not immediately returned.

Fields writes for the Associated Press.