punishment

WASHINGTON — President Trump has seized on the government shutdown as an opportunity to reshape the federal workforce and punish detractors, meeting with budget director Russ Vought on Thursday to talk through “temporary or permanent” spending cuts that could set up a lose-lose dynamic for Democratic lawmakers.

Trump announced the meeting on social media Thursday morning, saying he and Vought would determine “which of the many Democrat Agencies” would be cut — continuing their efforts to slash federal spending by threatening mass firings of workers and suggesting “irreversible” cuts to Democratic priorities.

“I can’t believe the Radical Left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity,” Trump wrote on his social media account. “They are not stupid people, so maybe this is their way of wanting to, quietly and quickly, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

The post was notable in its explicit embrace of Project 2025, a controversial policy blueprint drafted by the Heritage Foundation that Trump distanced himself from during his reelection campaign. The effort aimed to reshape the federal government around right-wing policies, and Democrats repeatedly pointed to its goals to warn of the consequences of a second Trump administration.

Vought on Wednesday offered an opening salvo of the pressure he hoped to put on Democrats. He announced he was withholding $18 billion for the Hudson River rail tunnel and Second Avenue subway line in New York City that have been championed by both Democratic leaders, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, in their home state. Vought is also canceling $8 billion in green energy projects in states with Democratic senators.

Meanwhile, the White House is preparing for mass firings of federal workers, rather than simply furloughing as is the usual practice during a shutdown. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said earlier this week that layoffs were “imminent.”

“If they don’t want further harm on their constituents back home, then they need to reopen the government,” Leavitt said Thursday said of Democrats.

A starring role for Russ Vought

The bespectacled and bearded Vought has emerged as a central figure in the shutdown — promising possible layoffs of government workers that would be a show of strength by the Trump administration as well as a possible liability given the weakening job market and existing voter unhappiness over the economy.

The strategic goal is to increase the political pressure on Democratic lawmakers as agencies tasked with environmental protection, racial equity and addressing poverty, among other things, could be gutted over the course of the shutdown.

But Democratic lawmakers also see Vought as the architect of a strategy to refuse to spend congressionally approved funds, using a tool known as a “pocket rescission” in which the administration submits plans to return unspent money to Congress just before the end of the fiscal year, causing that money to lapse.

All of this means that Democratic spending priorities might be in jeopardy regardless of whether they want to keep the government open or partially closed.

Ahead of the end of the fiscal year in September, Vought used the pocket rescission to block the spending of $4.9 billion in foreign aid.

White House officials refused to speculate on the future use of pocket rescissions after rolling them out in late August. But one of Vought’s former colleagues, insisting on anonymity to discuss the budget director’s plans, said that future pocket rescissions could be 20 times higher.

Shutdown continues with no endgame in sight

Thursday was Day 2 of the shutdown, and already the dial is turned high. The aggressive approach coming from the Trump administration is what certain lawmakers and budget observers feared if Congress, which has the responsibility to pass legislation to fund government, failed to do its work and relinquished control to the White House.

Vought, in a private conference call with House GOP lawmakers Wednesday, told them of layoffs starting in the next day or two. It’s an extension of the Department of Government Efficiency work under Elon Musk that slashed through the federal government at the start of the year.

“These are all things that the Trump administration has been doing since January 20th,” said Jeffries, referring to the president’s first day in office. “The cruelty is the point.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) underscored Thursday that the shutdown gives Trump and Vought vast power over the federal government. He blamed Democrats and said “they have effectively turned off the legislative branch” and “handed it over to the president.”

Still, Johnson said that Trump and Vought take “no pleasure in this.”

Trump and the congressional leaders are not expected to meet again soon. Congress has no action scheduled Thursday in observance of the Jewish holy day, with senators due back Friday. The House is set to resume session next week.

The Democrats are holding fast to their demands to preserve health care funding and refusing to back a bill that fails to do so, warning of price spikes for millions of Americans nationwide.

The shutdown is likely to harm the economy

With no easy endgame at hand, the standoff risks dragging deeper into October, when federal workers who remain on the job will begin missing paychecks. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated roughly 750,000 federal workers would be furloughed on any given day during the shutdown, a loss of $400 million daily in wages.

The economic effects could spill over into the broader economy. Past shutdowns saw “reduced aggregate demand in the private sector for goods and services, pushing down GDP,” the CBO said.

“Stalled federal spending on goods and services led to a loss of private-sector income that further reduced demand for other goods and services in the economy,” it said. Overall CBO said there was a “dampening of economic output,” but that reversed once people returned to work.

How Trump and Vought can reshape the federal government

With Congress as a standstill, the Trump administration has taken advantage of new levers to determine how to shape the federal government.

The Trump administration can tap into funds to pay workers at the Defense Department and Homeland Security from what’s commonly called the “One Big Beautiful Bill” that was signed into law this summer, according to the CBO.

That would ensure Trump’s immigration enforcement and mass deportation agenda is uninterrupted. But employees who remain on the job at many other agencies will have to wait for government to reopen before they get a paycheck.

Mascaro, Boak and Kim write for the Associated Press. AP writers Chris Megerian, Stephen Groves, Joey Cappelletti, Matt Brown, Kevin Freking, and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

ATLETICO MADRID boss Diego Simeone has escaped with a one-match ban for his Anfield Champions League red card.

Argentine Simeone was dismissed in the aftermath of Virgil van Dijk‘s stoppage time winner for Liverpool, when he became embroiled in a row with home fans.

3

3

A huge skirmish boiled over when a member of the Atletico staff was accused of spitting and squirting water at Liverpool fans.

But after studying the referee’s and match delegate’s report and video images, Simeone was handed a single game ban for “unsporting conduct”.

It means the former midfielder has been banished from the dressing room and touchline for tonight’s home game with Eintracht Frankfurt.

No action has been taken against the member of the coaching staff, with Uefa seemingly keen to put the matter to bed, although Liverpool were fined £3,500 for fans throwing objects onto the pitch during the game.

Simeone walked out of his post-match press conference in response to a question over whether the insults he had received had been either racist or referred to the 1982 Falklands War.

Before that, the Argentine claimed he had been subjected to “insults for the whole game”.

He said: “Firstly I regret the part I played.

“It’s clear we are in a position where we do not have the right to react and it is not good when we react.

BEST ONLINE CASINOS – TOP SITES IN THE UK

“My reaction isn’t justifiable but do you know what it is like to be insulted for 90 minutes?

“I saw the third goal go in and I turned, the insults continued, and well, I’m a person.”

3

MAX VERSTAPPEN is on the verge of a Formula One race ban after race stewards made a decision over his collision with George Russell at the Spanish Grand Prix.

The Red Bull driver lost his head at the end of the race following a safety car restart which culminated in him “undoubtedly” crashing into Russell and initially earning a 10-second time penalty.

3

3

3

That punishment dropped him from P5 when he crossed the line to P10, which opened a massive 49-point gap between himself and championship leader Oscar Piastri.

A further investigation from the FIA after the race saw the 27-year-old avoid disqualification, despite calls from Nico Rosberg on Sky Sports commentary.

However, F1‘s governing body decided that Verstappen‘s actions also warranted three points on his Super Licence, declaring the collision was “undoubtedly caused” by him.

And this has placed him on the verge of a ban for an F1 race later this season.

With the three points added from his exploits in Barcelona, Verstappen is now just one penalty point away from a race ban.

F1’s penalty points system works on a 12-month rolling basis, and Verstappen currently sits on 11 penalty points out of the maximum of 12 before a ban.

But the next time the four-time world champion will see any of his penalty points expire will be on June 30.

That means Verstappen will need to be on his best behaviour at both the Canada Grand Prix on June 15 and then Red Bull’s home race at the Austrian Grand Prix on June 29.

BEST ONLINE CASINOS – TOP SITES IN THE UK

Picking up another penalty point in Montreal would mean a ban for Verstappen at the Red Bull Ring, while a point in the second race would mean he is banned from the British Grand Prix on July 6.

Verstappen will become the first-ever reigning world champion to be hit by a ban if he picks up another point in either of those races.

However, if he stays clean across the next two race weekends then Verstappen will see two points expire from his licence and move down to nine.

After that he will need to avoid further incident going all the way to October 27th.

The chaos in Spain began after a safety car restart caused by Mercedes rookie Kimi Antonelli veering into the gravel. 

Verstappen nearly spun and Charles Leclerc overtook him before Russell, 27, nearly went into the back of him, with the Dutchman going off track onto the escape road.

He was then told by his team to give the place back to the Brit, believing he had gained an unfair advantage by leaving the track.

Fuming Verstappen swore down the radio at the decision before slowing up.

The Mercedes man thought he was letting him through at Turn 5 but his rival then appeared to intentionally ram into the side of him, which landed Verstappen in hot water.

Speaking after the race, Russell said: “I’m too close to give my opinion on behalf of the drivers. It’s like in Austin last year, some of the best moves ever then you go to Mexico and he lets himself down a bit.

“You go to Imola with one of the best moves of all-time, then this happens. It cost him and his team a lot of points. Charles and I actually dropped off like a stone on those last two laps.

“He probably could have come back to fight for the podium, so I won’t lose any sleep [over it]. We have our own problems and that’s making our car go faster.”

Verstappen himself said: “I don’t need to say anything about it because it doesn’t matter anyway.

“I had a big moment there in the last corner. Unfortunately the hard tyres had very low grip so that was quite painful. Basically, we just ran out of tyres.

“In hindsight, was it better to stay out? Maybe, I don’t know. It’s always easy to say afterwards. Because of those hard tyres, you get into those situations.

“I think [the strategy] was good, I think it worked for us. It was the best way forward. It was racy and I liked it. Unfortunately we didn’t get the benefits at the end.”

American universities have long feared that the Chinese government will restrict its country’s students from attending institutions that cross Beijing’s sensitive political lines.

Universities still fear that consequence today, but the most immediate threat is no longer posed by the Chinese government. Now, as the latest punishment meted out to the Trump administration’s preeminent academic scapegoat shows, it’s our own government posing the threat.

In a May 22 letter, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced she revoked Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, meaning the university’s thousands of international students must transfer immediately or lose their legal status. Harvard can no longer enroll future international students either.

Noem cited Harvard’s failure to hand over international student disciplinary records in response to a prior letter and, disturbingly, the Trump administration’s desire to “root out the evils of anti-Americanism” on campus. Among the most alarming demands in this latest missive was that Harvard supply all video of “any protest activity” by any international student within the last five years.

Harvard immediately sued Noem and her department and other agencies, rightfully calling the revocation “a blatant violation of the First Amendment,” and within hours a judge issued a temporary restraining order against the revocation.

“Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country,” Noem wrote on X about the punishment. And on Tuesday, the administration halted interviews for all new student visas.

This is not how a free country treats its schools — or the international visitors who attend them.

Noem’s warning will, no doubt, be heard loud and clear. That’s because universities — which depend on international students’ tuition dollars — have already had reason to worry that they will lose access to international students for displeasing censorial government officials.

In 2010, Beijing revoked recognition of the University of Calgary’s accreditation in China, meaning Chinese students at the Canadian school suddenly risked paying for a degree worth little at home. The reason? The university’s granting of an honorary degree to the Dalai Lama the year before. “We have offended our Chinese partners by the very fact of bringing in the Dalai Lama, and we have work to resolve that issue,” a spokesperson said.

Beijing restored recognition over a year later, but many Chinese students had already left. Damage done.

Similarly, when UC San Diego hosted the Dalai Lama as commencement speaker in 2017, punishment followed. The China Scholarship Council suspended funding for academics intending to study at UCSD, and an article in the state media outlet Global Times recommended that Chinese authorities “not recognize diplomas or degree certificates issued by the university.”

This kind of direct punishment doesn’t happen very frequently. But the threat always exists, and it creates fear that administrators take into account when deciding how their universities operate.

American universities now must fear that they will suffer this penalty too, but at an even greater scale: revocation of access not just to students from China, but all international students. That’s a huge potential loss. At Harvard, for example, international students make up a whopping 27% of total enrollment.

Whether they publicly acknowledge it or not, university leaders probably are considering whether they need to adjust their behavior to avoid seeing international student tuition funds dry up.

Will our colleges and universities increase censorship and surveillance of international students? Avoid inviting commencement speakers disfavored by the Trump administration? Pressure academic departments against hiring any professors whose social media comments or areas of research will catch the eye of mercurial government officials?

And, equally disturbing, will they be willing to admit that they are now making these calculations at all? Unlike direct punishments by the Trump administration or Beijing, this chilling effect is likely to be largely invisible.

Harvard might be able to survive without international students’ tuition. But a vast number of other universities could not. The nation as a whole would feel their loss too: In the 2023-24 academic year, international students contributed a record-breaking $43.8 billion to the American economy.

And these students — who have uprooted their lives for the promise of what American education offers — are the ones who will suffer the most, as they experience weeks or months of panic and upheaval while being used as pawns in this campaign to punish higher ed.

If the Trump administration is seeking to root out “anti-Americanism,” it can begin by surveying its own behavior in recent months. Freedom of expression is one of our country’s most cherished values. Censorship, surveillance and punishment of government critics do not belong here.

Sarah McLaughlin is senior scholar on global expression at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and author of the forthcoming book “Authoritarians in the Academy: How the Internationalization of Higher Education and Borderless Censorship Threaten Free Speech.”