Trump

Iran’s president says his nation will not be intimidated by threats as Trump accuses Tehran of carrying out proxy wars.

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian said his country would not “bow to any bully” in response to United States President Donald Trump’s criticism of Tehran during his ongoing three-day Gulf tour.

“He [Trump] thinks he can come here, chant slogans, and scare us. For us, martyrdom is far sweeter than dying in bed. You came to frighten us? We will not bow to any bully,” he said on Wednesday in comments broadcast live on state TV.

Earlier in the day, during the GCC summit in Riyadh, Trump said that while he wanted to make a deal with Iran, the country “must stop sponsoring terror, halt its bloody proxy wars, and permanently and verifiably cease its pursuit of nuclear weapons”.

Washington and Tehran have held four meetings that were mediated by Oman to help reach a deal over the latter’s nuclear programme.

While attending a state dinner in the Qatari capital in Doha on Wednesday, Trump repeated his publicly stated desire for a peaceful resolution to Iran’s nuclear programme and suggested the ball is in Tehran’s court.

“It’s a perilous situation, and we want to do the right thing,” Trump said. “We want to do something that’s going to save maybe millions of lives. Because things like that get started, and they get out of control.”

On Tuesday, Trump said that he wanted “to make a deal with Iran”, but “if Iran’s leadership rejects this olive branch … we will have no choice but to inflict massive maximum pressure”. He added that he would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

Successive US administrations have sought to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. A sustained effort by world powers during the Barack Obama administration culminated in a 2015 agreement called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

But when Trump succeeded Obama as US president, he unilaterally withdrew the US from the nuclear agreement in 2018, causing the deal to crumble.

Despite ongoing talks, the Trump administration has continued to impose sanctions on Iran.

On Wednesday, the US issued sanctions targeting Iran for efforts to domestically manufacture components for ballistic missiles, the US Department of the Treasury said.

The sanctions target six individuals and 12 entities for what the Treasury Department said was “their involvement in efforts to help the Iranian regime domestically source the manufacturing of critical materials needed for Tehran’s ballistic missile program”.

As President Trump parades through the Middle East this week, he will encounter a very different region than the one he experienced during his first term. True, the Israeli-Palestinian problem remains unresolved, as do the challenges emanating from Iran’s much-advanced nuclear program and the instability and dysfunction in Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Syria and Yemen.

But this old wine is now packaged in new bottles. Beyond the garish headlines of Trump’s plan to accept a Boeing 747 as a gift from Qatar, new trends are emerging that will redefine the region, posing additional challenges for U.S. policy.

Of all the changes in the Middle East since Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, perhaps the most striking is Israel’s emergence as a regional powerhouse. Aided by the administrations of Presidents Biden and Trump, and enabled by Arab regimes that do little to support Palestinians, Israel devastated Hamas and Hezbollah as military organizations, killing much of their senior leadership. With the support of the United States, Europe and friendly Arab states, it effectively countered two direct Iranian missile attacks on its territory.

Israel then delivered its own strike, reportedly destroying much of Iran’s ballistic missile production and air defenses. In short, Israel has achieved escalation dominance: the capacity to escalate (or not) as it sees fit, and to deter its adversaries from doing so. Israel has also redefined its concept of border security in Gaza, Lebanon, the West Bank and Syria by acting unilaterally to preempt and prevent threats to its territory.

Converting Israel’s military power into political arrangements, even peace accords, would seem like a reasonable next step. But the right-wing government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems uninterested in such options and is unlikely to be induced to change its outlook. Moreover, securing new, lasting agreements also depends on whether there are leaders among the Palestinians and key Arab states ready to take up the challenge, with all the political risks it entails.

But the Arab world remains in serious disarray. At least five Arab states are dealing with profound internal challenges, leaving them in various degrees of dysfunction and state failure. Amid this power vacuum, two alternative power centers have emerged. The first are the states of the Persian Gulf, especially Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. Relatively unscathed by the Arab Spring and blessed with sovereign wealth funds, oil and natural gas, these stable authoritarian powers, particularly Saudi Arabia, have begun to play an outsize role in the region.

The second category comprises non-Arab states. Israel, Turkey and Iran are the only states in the region with the capacity to project significant military power beyond their borders. While each has suffered periods of internal unrest, they currently enjoy domestic stability. Each also boasts tremendous economic potential and significant security, military and intelligence capabilities, including the capability to manufacture weapons domestically.

One (Israel) is America’s closest regional ally, another (Turkey) is a member of NATO and a newfound power broker in Syria, and the third (Iran) retains considerable influence despite Israel’s mauling of its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran’s nuclear program keeps it relevant, even central, to both Israeli and American policymaking.

All three non-Arab states engender a good deal of suspicion and mistrust among Arab regimes but are nonetheless seen as key players whom no one wants to offend. All three are at odds — with each frustrating the others’ regional objectives — and all three are here to stay. Their influence will most likely only grow in the years to come, given the fractiousness of the Arab world.

In the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, it seemed that the Palestinian issue was once again front and center, not just in the Arab world, but internationally. Those who claimed it had lost its resonance could point to the outpouring of sympathy and support for Gazan civilians as Israel’s war against Hamas led to a humanitarian catastrophe.

Moreover, the United Nations passed resolutions calling for an end to the war, many around the world condemned the war and Israel, the International Court of Justice took up the question of whether Israel is committing genocide, and the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu (as well as for Hamas’ military commander, later found to have been killed).

Nonetheless, it has become stunningly clear that, far from pushing the Palestinian issue to the top of the international agenda, the Oct. 7 attack has actually diminished its salience and left Palestinians isolated and without good options. Continued U.S. support for Israel’s war against Hamas, despite the exponential rise of Palestinian deaths, has protected Israel from negative consequences; key Arab regimes have done next to nothing to impose costs and consequences on Israel and the U.S. as Palestinian civilian deaths mount. The international community appears too fragmented, distracted and self-interested to act in any concerted way in defense of Palestine.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian national movement remains divided and dysfunctional, giving Palestinians an unpalatable choice between Hamas and the aging president of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. The prospects for anything resembling a two-state solution have never looked bleaker.

How the Trump administration will process these developments remains to be seen. Clearly, it has adopted a pro-Israel view, with Trump musing about turning Gaza into a Riviera-style resort. He has deployed his special envoy to the Middle East to secure the return of hostages taken by Hamas but has yet to invest in any postwar plan for the beleaguered enclave. Indeed, he has left the strategy for Gaza to Israel, which in turn has resumed its military campaign there. Trump has also acquiesced to Israel’s pursuit of aggressive border defenses against both Lebanon and Syria, while enabling Israel’s annexationist policies in the West Bank.

Yet Trump is nothing if not unpredictable. In April, he announced new U.S. negotiations with Iran in the presence of Netanyahu, who himself has tried to persuade the president that the only solution to Iran’s nuclear program is military action. But if U.S.-Iranian negotiations do advance, or if Trump’s interest in Israeli-Saudi normalization intensifies, he may find himself drawn into the Middle East negotiating bazaar, dealing with the intricacies of day-after planning in Gaza and a political horizon for Palestinians.

These paths are already fomenting tension between Trump, who will not be visiting Israel on his Middle East trip, and a recalcitrant Netanyahu. But given Trump’s absolute control over his party, Netanyahu will have few options to appeal to Republicans if the White House proposes policies that he opposes. As most U.S. allies have already learned, if Trump wants something, he’s not averse to using pressure to get it.

Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is a former State Department Middle East analyst and negotiator in Republican and Democratic administrations and the author of “The End of Greatness: Why America Can’t Have (and Doesn’t Want) Another Great President.” Lauren Morganbesser is a junior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

California is facing an additional $12-billion state budget shortfall next year, a deficit largely caused by overspending and that Gov. Gavin Newsom said was made worse by President Trump’s federal tariff policy.

“California is under assault,” Newsom said. “The United States of America, in many respects, is under assault because we have a president that’s been reckless.”

Newsom unveiled the forecast during a presentation Wednesday of his $321.9-billion revised spending plan that proposes walking back free healthcare for low-income undocumented immigrants, eliminating Medi-Cal benefits for expensive weight loss treatments and cutting back overtime hours for in-home supportive service workers, among dozens of other trims.

The new deficit comes in addition to $27.3 billion in fiscal remedies, including $16.1 billion in cuts and a $7.1-billion withdrawal from the state’s rainy day fund, that lawmakers and the governor already agreed to make in 2025-26.

The overall $39-billion shortfall marks the third year in a row that Newsom and lawmakers have been forced to reduce funding for state programs after dedicating more money than California has available to spend.

Newsom’s proposed cuts

Among the new cuts Newsom put on the table Wednesday is a call to cut back on his signature policy to provide free healthcare coverage to income-eligible undocumented immigrants.

Newsom is proposing freezing new Medi-Cal enrollment for undocumented adult immigrants as of Jan. 1 and requiring those over 18 to pay $100 monthly premiums to receive healthcare coverage through Medi-Cal.

The cost share will reduce the financial burden on the state and could lower the total number of people enrolled in the healthcare program if some immigrants cannot afford the new premiums. Freezing enrollment may prevent the price tag of the program from continuing to balloon after more people signed up for coverage than the state anticipated.

The changes offer minor savings of $116.5 million next year, with savings growing to $5.4 billion in 2028-29.

The governor is also following the federal government’s lead and cutting $85 million in benefits for Ozempic and other popular weight loss medications from all Medi-Cal coverage plans, while saving $333.3 million by eliminating long-term care benefits for some enrollees.

Newsom wants to cap overtime hours for in-home support service workers, according to his budget, to save $707.5 million next year.

The governor’s budget includes a controversial proposal to grab $1.3 billion in funding in 2025-26 from Proposition 35, a measure voters approved in November that dedicated the revenue from a tax on managed care organizations to primarily pay for increases to Medi-Cal provider rates. The decision is expected to draw pushback from a coalition of doctors, clinics, hospitals and other healthcare groups that supported the proposition, which nearly 68% of voters backed.

Under another cost-saving measure, the governor wants to shift $1.5 billion in funding for Cal Fire from the general fund. Instead, Newsom wants to provide that $1.5 billion from the greenhouse gas reduction fund paid for by proceeds of the state cap-and-trade program next year.

The governor’s budget proposes extending the cap-and-trade program — a first-of-its-kind initiative that sets limits on companies’ greenhouse gas emissions and allows them to buy additional credits at auction from the state, and he wants to dedicate at least $1 billion each year to high speed rail.

A spending deficit

The budget marks a continuation of years of overspending in California under the Newsom administration.

After predicting a lofty $100-billion surplus from federal COVID-19 stimulus funding and the resulting economic gains three years ago, Democrats have not reduced spending to match up with a return to normal after the pandemic.

Poor projections, the ballooning cost of Democratic policy promises and a reluctance to make long-term sweeping cuts have added to the deficit at a time when the governor regularly touts California’s place as the fourth largest economy in the world.

State revenues have exceeded expectations since April, but so has state spending.

Despite the shortfall, California has more money to spend than in the prior budget approved in June, and the governor and lawmakers still plan to take $7.1 billion from the state’s rainy day fund to cover the total 2025-26 deficit.

A “Trump Slump”

Though personal income tax and corporate tax receipts in the state came in $6.8 billion above projections through April, Newsom is predicting that overall revenues will be $16 billion lower than they could have been from January 2025 through June 2026 because of the economic impact of Trump’s tariffs.

The governor originally released the new information, which his team dubbed the “Trump Slump,” on the eve of the presentation of his revised 2025-26 state budget plan, seeking to blame the president for California’s expected revenue shortfall.

Trump in April implemented a series of tariffs on all imported goods, higher taxes on products from Mexico, Canada and China, and specific levies on products and materials such as autos and aluminum. The president has backed down from some of his tariffs, but Newsom alleges that the policies and economic uncertainty will lead to higher unemployment, inflation, lower GDP projections and less capital gains revenue for California.

California filed a lawsuit last month arguing that Trump lacks the authority to impose tariffs on his own. On Tuesday, the state said it will seek a preliminary injunction to freeze the tariffs in federal court.

WASHINGTON — A Democratic lawmaker is launching a renegade effort to impeach President Trump, pushing past party leaders on Wednesday with an attempt to force a procedural vote in the U.S. House that is expected to fail.

Rep. Shri Thanedar of Michigan announced his intention to charge ahead, saying that as an immigrant to America he wants to do all he can to protect its Constitution and institutions from Trump’s lawlessness. His resolution contains seven articles of impeachment against the Republican president.

“Donald J. Trump has been committing crimes since day one — bribery, corruption, taking power from Congress, creating an unlawful office in DOGE, violating 1st Amendment rights, ignoring due process,” the congressman said earlier from the House floor.

It would be the historic third time Trump has faced impeachment efforts after being twice impeached during his first term as president — first in 2019 on charges related to withholding military aid to Ukraine as it confronted Russia and later on a charge of inciting insurrection over the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by a mob of his supporters. Trump was acquitted both times by the Senate.

Thanedar is not the only Democrat who has signaled impeachment efforts against Trump. But his decision to go it almost alone, without backing from party leadership, comes as he faces his own political challenges at home, with several primary opponents looking to unseat him in his Detroit-area congressional district.

Timing is also key. His resolution claiming Trump committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” comes as Trump is traveling in the Middle East in his first major trip abroad of his second term, violating a norm in American politics of not criticizing the president once he leaves the U.S.

But Thanedar said he was pressing ahead in part because of Trump’s trip abroad and the potential conflicts of interest as the president appears to be mixing his personal business dealings with his presidential duties and is considering accepting a lavish gift of an airplane from the Qatari government.

“My constituents want me to act,” Thanedar told the Associated Press late Tuesday.

“It’s time for us to stand up and speak. We can’t worry about, ‘Is this the right time?’ We can’t worry about, ‘Are we going to win this battle?’ It’s more about doing the right thing,” he said. “I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. So did Mr. Trump. He has violated his oath, and he’s doing unconstitutional activities. It’s time for someone to stand up and say that, and if that’s just me, then so be it.”

Thanedar is using a procedural tool to force a vote Wednesday on whether to proceed to the issue or shelve the matter.

One top Trump ally, Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, criticized Thanedar and dismissed the impeachment effort.

“It’s DOA,” she posted on social media.

Impeachment of a president or other U.S. officials, once rare, has become an increasingly common in Congress.

Republicans in the House opened an impeachment inquiry into then-President Biden, a Democrat, but stopped short of action. The Republicans in Congress did, however, impeach Biden’s Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. The Senate dismissed two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas, ending his trial.

Thanedar, who’s from India, has said he came to the United States without many resources. He said he loves the U.S. and wants to defend its Constitution and institutions.

When he took over the Detroit congressional district, it was the first time in decades the city was left without a Black lawmaker in Congress.

Mascaro, Brown and Askarinam write for the Associated Press.

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — President Trump met Wednesday with Syria’s new leader, praising him as a “young, attractive guy” and urging him to rid his country of “Palestinian terrorists.”

Trump also urged Syrian interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa to sign onto the historic Abraham Accords brokered during Trump’s first term.

The meeting in Riyadh came as Trump concluded the Saudi Arabian leg of his Middle Eastern trip and headed to Qatar, the second destination of what has so far been an opulence-heavy tour of the region.

The meeting with Al-Sharaa, which lasted roughly half an hour and was the first time in a quarter of a century that the leaders of the two nations have met, marks a significant victory for Al-Sharaa’s fledgling government, coming one day after Trump’s decision to lift long-standing sanctions from the war-ravaged country.

It also lends legitimacy to a leader whose past as an Al Qaeda-affiliated jihadi leader — Al-Sharaa severed ties with the group in 2016 — had made Western nations keep him at arm’s length.

The sanctions were imposed on Syria in 2011, when the now-deposed President Bashar Assad began a brutal crackdown to quell anti-government uprisings.

Al-Sharaa headed an Islamist rebel coalition that toppled Assad in December, but the Trump administration and other Western governments conditioned the lifting of sanctions on his government fulfilling certain conditions.

Yet as is his custom, Trump cut through protocol and relied on personal relations, lifting the sanctions at the urging of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a long-time supporter of Syria’s rebellion, who joined the meeting via phone.

Speaking on Air Force One en route to Qatar, Trump described Al-Sharaa as a “young, attractive guy. Tough guy. Strong past. Very strong past. Fighter.”

“He’s got a real shot at holding it together,” Trump added. “I spoke with President Erdogan, who is very friendly with him. He feels he’s got a shot of doing a good job. It’s a torn-up country.”

According to a readout shared by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on X, Trump urged Al-Sharaa to sign onto the Abraham Accords, tell “foreign terrorists” to leave Syria and deport “Palestinian terrorists,” help the U.S. in preventing Islamic State’s resurgence and assume responsibility for detention centers in northeast Syria housing thousands of people affiliated with Islamic State.

The Abraham Accords were the centerpiece of Trump’s foreign policy achievements in his first term. Brokered in 2020, they established diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan — without conditioning them on Palestinian statehood or Israeli concessions to the Palestinians.

Under Assad, Syria maintained a decades-old truce with Israel, despite hosting several Palestinian factions and allowing Iran and affiliated groups to operate in the country.

US President Donald Trump has met Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa on the sidelines of the GCC summit in Riyadh. Trump confirmed that he will lift sanctions on Syria to give the country a fresh start after the fall of the Assad government.

ADVERTISEMENT

Nvidia’s shares surged 5.6% on Tuesday, boosted by a tens-of-billions-of-dollars artificial intelligence (AI) investment plan agreed between the US and Saudi Arabia. However, the AI powerhouse’s stock remains down 4.5% year-to-date as of market close on 13 May, facing challenges stemming from US-China trade tensions and the launch of China’s DeepSeek, a lower-cost AI model.

CEO Jensen Huang was among the US tech leaders—alongside Tesla’s Elon Musk, OpenAI’s Sam Altman, AMD’s Lisa Su, Palantir’s Alex Karp, and other executives—who accompanied President Trump on his visit to Saudi Arabia. At the investment conference, the White House announced a $600 billion investment pledge by the Middle Eastern kingdom into the US, including a nearly $142 billion defence sales deal, an $80 billion commitment into “cutting-edge transformative technologies” in both countries, and other agreements across energy, aerospace, and sports sectors.

Trump also vowed to lift all sanctions against Syria during his visit, a political gesture to warm the relationship with key Middle East countries. He is also going to meet leaders of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) later this week.

The Middle East AI deals

Nvidia announced it will partner with HUMAIN, a subsidiary of Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund focused on AI, to transform the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) into “a global powerhouse in AI, cloud and enterprise computing, digital twins and robotics.” Nvidia will supply its most advanced AI chips over the next five years, including 18,000 units of the GB200 Grace Blackwell AI supercomputer with its InfiniBand networking in the initial phase. The purchase forms part of a broader project for HUMAIN to build AI factories in the kingdom, with a projected capacity of up to 500 megawatts.

The announcement also includes a deal with the Saudi Data & AI Authority (SDAIA), which will “deploy up to 5,000 Blackwell GPUs for a sovereign AI factory and enable smart city solutions.” Aramco Digital, the technology arm of oil giant Saudi Aramco, will also collaborate with Nvidia to develop AI infrastructure in the country.

Saudi Arabia, an oil-rich nation, is seeking to diversify its economy, which still relies heavily on crude exports. The kingdom aims to attract $100 billion in foreign direct investment annually, as outlined under its Vision 2030 strategy.

According to a Bloomberg report, the Trump administration is also considering a deal with the UAE, which would permit the import of over one million advanced Nvidia chips—well above the export limits imposed under the Biden administration.

Other major US tech firms, including AMD, Global AI, Amazon, Cisco, and OpenAI, also announced AI investment plans in Saudi Arabia during the event.

The US scraps Biden’s AI diffusion rule

Trump’s Middle East trip is shaping up to be a major win for US AI chipmakers, as the president looks to ease export curbs to China. On the same day, the US Department of Commerce (DOC) announced that it is rescinding the AI diffusion rule imposed during former President Joe Biden’s administration, which had been due to take effect on 15 May.

Biden’s administration had implemented fresh restrictions on AI chip exports to China in January, its final month in office, expanding controls to much of the world, amid concerns that China was accessing US AI chips via third countries. Both Saudi Arabia and the UAE had also been subject to those restrictions.

“The Trump administration will pursue a bold, inclusive strategy to advance American AI technology with trusted foreign partners, while keeping the technology out of the hands of our adversaries. At the same time, we reject the Biden administration’s attempt to impose its own ill-conceived and counterproductive AI policies on the American people,” stated the DOC.

The department added that the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued new guidance to strengthen controls over overseas exports of AI chips to limit China’s access to advanced US technologies.

Washington, DC – United States President Donald Trump says that forging formal relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel would be a “dream”, but he wants the kingdom to do it on its “own time”.

The White House on Tuesday made public a flurry of economic and defence pacts with Saudi Arabia involving hundreds of billions of dollars, but any mention of Israel was conspicuously absent from the announcements.

The so-called “normalisation” drive between Saudi Arabia and Israel dominated his predecessor, Joe Biden’s, approach to the region, but the current US president is shifting focus elsewhere, analysts say.

“The Trump administration has made it clear they are willing to move forward on key agreements with Saudi Arabia without the previous condition of Saudi-Israel normalisation,” said Anna Jacobs, a non-resident fellow at the Arab Gulf States Institute, a think tank.

“This probably reflects growing frustration in the Trump administration with Israeli military action across the region, especially in Gaza.”

‘Time is not right’

Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, fellow for the Middle East at the Baker Institute, also said that Trump has realised that with the ongoing war in Gaza and Israel’s refusal to negotiate the establishment of a Palestinian state, the “time is not right” for a Saudi Arabia-Israeli pact despite Biden’s emphasis on brokering a deal.

“I think the White House has finally acknowledged that a normalisation agreement at this time is not possible,” Coates Ulrichsen told Al Jazeera.

During his first term, Trump managed to broker the Abraham Accords between Israel and several Arab countries, including the United Arab Emirates, which established formal relations with the US ally independently of the Palestinian issue.

However, the agreements were unsuccessful in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as evidenced by the outbreak of the war in Gaza in October 2023.

But even before the war started, Israel had been intensifying its military raids against Palestinians and expanding illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, further dimming the prospects of a two-state solution to the conflict.

Despite the agreements’ apparent shortcomings, Biden made adding Saudi Arabia to the Abraham Accords a focal point of his Middle East agenda, and US officials said they worked on securing a deal up until the final days of the administration, even as the war on Gaza was raging.

Biden has repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that Hamas launched its October 7 attack against Israel in 2023 to thwart an agreement between the Saudis and Israelis.

Still, a day before he left office, Biden boasted that his Middle East policies created an opportunity for “the future of normalisation and integration of Israel with all its Arab neighbours, including Saudi Arabia”.

‘Off the table’

US officials and media reports said that Biden’s deal, which never materialised, would have brought a security pact between Riyadh and Washington and provided US help for Saudi Arabia to establish a civil nuclear programme in exchange for normalisation with Israel.

A major sticking point in that push has been the widely stated Saudi Arabian support for the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which conditions recognition of Israel on the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has categorically rejected the “land for peace” framework, pushing instead for deals with Arab countries that bypass Palestinians.

“This Israeli government won’t even provide lip service to the idea of a two-state solution, making it pretty impossible for Saudi Arabia to seriously consider moving forward with normalisation,” said Jacobs from the Arab Gulf States Institute.

“The Trump administration seems to have understood that it’s off the table, at least for now.”

In Riyadh, Trump announced an agreement to deepen security cooperation with Saudi Arabia.

The $142bn deal will provide Saudi Arabia with “state-of-the-art warfighting equipment and services” from US firms, the White House said.

It also includes “extensive training and support to build the capacity of the Saudi armed forces, including enhancement of Saudi service academies and military medical services”, it added.

While the weapons and training deals fall short of a NATO-like mutual defence pact, which may have been included as part of an accord with Israel, they take a bite from the US-backed carrots offered to the kingdom for normalisation, experts say.

“The announcements today do further deepen the links between Saudi and US security and defence interests,” Coates Ulrichsen said.

US-Israel rift?

Trump’s visit to the region comes as Israel has promised to not just continue, but expand, its devastating war on Gaza, which has killed more than 52,900 Palestinians, according to health authorities.

Khaled Elgindy, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University, noted that Riyadh has described Israeli atrocities in Gaza as a “genocide”.

“The Saudis are not mincing their words; they are not holding back,” Elgindy told Al Jazeera. “They can’t now move toward normalisation with Israel after accusing Israel of genocide. That would just be ridiculous.”

After his trip to Saudi Arabia, Trump will head to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates as part of the first planned foreign trips of his presidency, since attending Pope Francis’s funeral last month. Israel is not on the itinerary.

For Coates Ulrichsen and others, Trump’s apparent snub of Israel reflects unease in the US-Israeli alliance.

“It may be a signal that the White House sees much more value in deepening commercial and strategic relationships with the Gulf states at the moment, given that Israel remains mired in conflict,” Coates Ulrichsen told Al Jazeera.

Israel excluded

Tensions between the Trump administration and Netanyahu’s government have become more apparent in recent weeks despite the US’s military and diplomatic backing of Israel.

Trump confirmed talks with Iran over its nuclear programme during Netanyahu’s visit to the White House, despite the Israeli leader’s opposition to negotiations with Tehran.

Last week, the US president also declared a ceasefire with the Houthis. The deal did not demand an end to the Yemeni group’s attacks against Israel.

As Trump spoke in Riyadh on Tuesday, the Houthis fired another missile at Israel – part of a campaign they say aims to pressure an end to the war on Gaza.

The Trump administration also worked with mediators in Qatar and Egypt to secure the release of US citizen Edan Alexander, who served in the Israeli military and was captured by Hamas during the October 7 attack on Israel. According to Israeli media reports, Israel was excluded from those talks.

Different visions

Elgindy from Georgetown University said the apparent tensions are more than a “bump in the road”, but their impact on the US-Israeli relationship remains to be seen.

“Trump is making clear in word and deed that US and Israeli interests are not one and the same,” he said. “And that’s very significant because Biden didn’t do that.”

For now, Trump remains committed to US military aid to Israel even as it intensifies its bombardment and starvation campaign in Gaza.

And the US president has pushed on with his crackdown on critics of Israel at home, especially on college campuses.

Still, experts say that by skipping Israel during his Middle East trip and de-prioritising normalisation, Trump is pushing forward in pursuit of his own vision for the region.

On Tuesday, Trump lauded Gulf leaders whom he said are building a Middle East “where people of different nations, religions and creeds are building cities together – not bombing each other out of existence”.

That future seems at odds with what Israel appears to be seeking: asserting hegemony over the region with long-term bombing campaigns, including in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen.

“A very strong signal is being sent that a stable, prosperous Middle East – represented, in the administration’s views, by the Gulf states – is a much more desirable outcome than maybe the Israeli view of the Middle East at the moment, which is one of seemingly escalating a forever conflict,” said Coates Ulrichsen.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has slashed another $450m in grants from Harvard University, amid an ongoing feud over anti-Semitism, presidential control and the limits of academic freedom.

On Tuesday, a joint task force assembled under Trump accused Harvard, the country’s oldest university, of perpetrating a “long-standing policy and practice of discriminating on the basis of race”.

“Harvard’s campus, once a symbol of academic prestige, has become a breeding ground for virtue signaling and discrimination. This is not leadership; it is cowardice. And it’s not academic freedom; it’s institutional disenfranchisement,” the task force said in a statement.

“By prioritizing appeasement over accountability, institutional leaders have forfeited the school’s claim to taxpayer support.”

The elimination of another $450m in grants came in addition to the more than $2.2bn in federal funds that were already suspended last week, the task force added.

The feud between the president and Harvard – a prestigious Ivy League campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts – began in March, when Trump sought to impose new rules and regulations on top schools that had played host to pro-Palestinian protests over the last year.

Trump has called such protests “illegal” and accused participants of anti-Semitism. But student protest leaders have described their actions as a peaceful response to Israel’s war in Gaza, which has elicited concerns about human rights abuses, including genocide.

Columbia University was initially a centrepiece of the Trump administration’s efforts. The New York City school had seen the first major Palestine solidarity encampment rise on its lawn, which served as a blueprint for similar protests around the world. It also saw a series of mass arrests in the aftermath.

In March, one of Columbia’s protest leaders, Mahmoud Khalil, was the first foreign student to be arrested and have his legal immigration status revoked under Trump’s campaign to punish demonstrators. And when Trump threatened to yank $400m in grants and research contracts, the school agreed to submit to a list of demands to restore the funding.

The demands included adopting a formal definition of anti-Semitism, beefing up campus security and putting one of its academic departments – focused on Middle East, African and South Asian studies – under the supervision of an outside authority.

Free speech advocates called Columbia’s concessions a capitulation to Trump, who they say has sought to erode academic freedom and silence viewpoints he disagrees with.

On April 11, his administration issued another list of demands for Harvard that went even further. Under its terms, Harvard would have had to revamp its disciplinary system, eliminate its diversity initiatives and agree to an external audit of programmes deemed anti-Semitic.

The demands also required Harvard to agree to “structural and personnel changes” that would foster “viewpoint diversity” – a term left ambiguous. But critics argued it was a means for Trump to impose his values and priorities on the school by shaping its hiring and admissions practices.

Harvard has been at the centre of controversies surrounding its admissions in the past. In 2023, for instance, the Supreme Court ruled that Harvard’s consideration of race in student admissions – through a process called affirmative action – violated the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.

Tuesday’s letter referenced that court decision in arguing that “Harvard University has repeatedly failed to confront the pervasive race discrimination and anti-Semitic harassment plaguing its campus”.

A pair of reports in April, created by Harvard University’s own task forces, also found that there were cases of anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish violence on campus in the wake of Israel’s war in Gaza, a divisive issue in US politics.

Ultimately, on April 14, Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, rejected the Trump administration’s demands, arguing they were evidence of government overreach.

“No government – regardless of which party is in power – should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,” Garber wrote in his response.

But Trump has continued to pressure the campus, including by threatening to revoke its tax-exempt status. Democrats and other critics have warned that it would be illegal for the president to influence the decisions of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with regard to individual taxpayers, like the university.

Under Trump, the Department of Homeland Security has also threatened to bar foreign students from enrolling at the university if Harvard did not hand over documents pertaining to the pro-Palestine protests.

On Monday, Garber, Harvard’s president, wrote a response to Trump’s secretary of education, Linda McMahon, defending his campus’s commitment to free speech while also addressing the spectre of anti-Semitism.

“We share common ground on a number of critical issues, including the importance of ending antisemitism and other bigotry on campus. Like you, I believe that Harvard must foster an academic environment that encourages freedom of thought and expression, and that we should embrace a multiplicity of viewpoints,” his letter read.

But, he added, Harvard’s efforts to create a more equitable learning environment were “undermined and threatened” by the Trump administration’s “overreach”.

“Harvard will not surrender its core, legally-protected principles out of fear of unfounded retaliation by the federal government,” Garber said.

“I must refute your claim that Harvard is a partisan institution. It is neither Republican nor Democratic. It is not an arm of any other political party or movement. Nor will it ever be.”

May 13 (UPI) — Justice Department nominees won’t be confirmed until the Trump administration provides full transparency on “Qatari influence,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., announced on Tuesday.

The recently announced donation of a $400 million luxury Boeing 747-8 from the Qatari royal family for President Donald Trump to use as Air Force 1, which Trump has said will be donated to his presidential library after he leaves office, spurred opposition from Senate Democrats.

“This has the appearance of naked corruption” and “is a grave national security risk,” Schumer said Tuesday in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi.

“Given reports that you played a central role in approving his proposal, I request answers to the following questions,” Schumer told Bondi.

Schumer wants to know if the aircraft will include secure communications, self-defense systems, shielding and other security requirements that “are ready on day one.”

If so, he wants to know who installed them and how the Trump administration knows the aircraft is not a national security threat.

If not, Schumer wants to know “what modifications would be needed to ensure a foreign-sourced Air Force One is safe to use and free of security threats.”

He also wants to know if taxpayers would have to pay to retrofit the aircraft, if the gift would negate a $3.9 billion 2018 contract with Boeing for two new presidential aircraft, and how much such a cancellation might cost.

If the $3.9 billion contract is not cancelled, Schumer asked Bondi how the Trump administration justifies allocating resources to a foreign-sourced aircraft that only would be used while Trump is president, who negotiated the agreement and its parameters.

“What is Qatar being offered in return?” Schumer asked.

He also wants to know why Bondi in February “deprioritized enforcement” of the Foreign Agents Registration Act and other foreign-influence laws.

“Please explain this decision to weaken FARA, which requires agents of foreign governments, like Qatar, to register and disclose their activities,” Schumer said.

“Until the administration provides a detailed justification of this new program, including complete and comprehensive answers to these and other questions posed by oversight committees, I will place a hold on all political nominees of the Department of Justice,” Schumer said.

Senate rules enable a senator to place a blanket hold on political nominations for matters that are unrelated to the respective nominees.

A White House spokesperson accused Schumer of politicizing the aircraft donation.

“Sen. Schumer and his anti-law-and-order party are prioritizing politics over critical DOJ appointments, obstructing President Trump’s Make America Safe Again agenda,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement to UPI.

“Cryin’ Chuck must end the antics, stop Senate stonewalling and prioritize the safety and civil rights of Americans,” Fields added.

A DOJ spokesperson in an emailed statement to UPI said Schumer and Senate Democrats should stop blocking DOJ nominees.

“The American people overwhelmingly elected President Trump to nominate highly qualified candidates at the Department of Justice who will Make America Safe Again,” the spokesperson said. “The Senate should do its part by confirming these nominees.”

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Office said Tuesday that President Trump’s tariff policies will reduce state revenues in California by $16 billion through next year.

Despite personal income tax and corporate tax receipts in the state coming in $6.8 billion above projections through April, the Newsom administration is predicting that overall revenues will be lower than they could have been from January 2025 through June 2026 because of the economic impact of Trump’s tariffs.

The governor released the new information, which his team dubbed the “Trump Slump,” on the eve of the presentation of his revised 2025-26 state budget plan, seeking to blame the president for California’s expected revenue shortfall. His office has not released any additional figures about the state budget.

Newsom is expected on Wednesday to project a deficit for California in the year ahead with Medi-Cal costs exceeding expectations, including his signature policy to provide free healthcare coverage to low-income undocumented immigrants. The new shortfall comes in addition to $27.3 billion in financial remedies, including $16.1 billion in cuts and a $7.1 billion withdrawal from the state’s rainy day fund, that lawmakers and the governor already agreed to make in 2025-26.

The deficit marks the third year in a row that Newsom and lawmakers have been forced to reduce spending after dedicating more money to programs than the state has available to spend. Poor projections, the ballooning cost of Democratic policy promises and a reluctance to make long-term sweeping cuts have added to the deficit at a time when the governor regularly touts California’s place as the fourth largest economy in the world.

Trump implemented a series of tariffs on all imported goods, higher taxes on products from goods from Mexico, Canada and China, and specific levies on products and materials such as autos and aluminum, in April. The president has backed down from some of his tariffs, but Newsom alleges that the policies and economic uncertainty will lead to higher unemployment, inflation, lower GDP projections and less capital gains revenue for California.

California filed a lawsuit last month arguing that Trump lacks the authority to impose tariffs on his own. On Tuesday, the state said it will seek a preliminary injunction to freeze the tariffs in federal court.

President Trump has spent the first major overseas trip of his second administration — next stop Wednesday in Qatar — beating back allegations that he was personally profiting from foreign leaders by accepting a $400-million luxury airliner from the Gulf state’s royal family.

Trump has bristled at the notion that he should turn down such a gift, saying he would be “stupid” to do so and that Democrats were “World Class Losers” for suggesting it was not only wrong but also unconstitutional.

But Democrats were hardly alone in criticizing the arrangement as Trump prepared for broad trade discussions in Doha, the Qatari capital.

Several top Republicans in Congress have expressed concerns about the deal, including that the plane would be a security risk. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) on Tuesday said there were “lots of issues associated with that offer which I think need to be further talked about,” and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), another member of the Republican leadership team, said that Trump and the White House “need to look at the constitutionality” of the deal and that she would be “checking for bugs” on the plane, a clear reference to fears that Qatar may see the jetliner as an intelligence asset.

Criticism of the deal has even arisen among the deep-red MAGA ranks. In an online post echoed by other right-wing influencers in Trump’s orbit, loyalist Laura Loomer wrote that while she would “take a bullet for Trump,” the Qatar deal would be “a stain” on his administration.

The broad outrage in some ways reflected the stark optics of the deal, which would provide Trump with the superluxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet — known as the “palace in the sky” — for free, to be transferred to his personal presidential library upon his departure from office.

Accepting a lavish gift from the Persian Gulf nation makes even some stolid Trump allies queasy because of Qatar’s record of abuses against its Shiite Muslim minority and its funding of Hamas, the militant group whose attack on Israel touched off a prolonged war in the region.

Critics have called the deal an out-and-out bribe for future influence by the Qatari royal family, and one that would clearly come due at some point — raising serious questions around the U.S.’ ability to act with its own geopolitical interests in mind in the future, rather than Qatar’s.

Trump and Qatar have rejected that framing but have also deflected questions about what Qatar expects to receive in return for the jet.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, in response to detailed questions from The Times, said in a statement that Trump “is compliant with all conflict-of-interest rules, and only acts in the best interests of the American public — which is why they overwhelmingly re-elected him to this office, despite years of lies and false accusations against him and his businesses from the fake news media.”

Leavitt has previously said it was “ridiculous” for the media to “suggest that President Trump is doing anything for his own benefit,” because he “left a life of luxury and a life of running a very successful real estate empire for public service, not just once, but twice.”

Ali Al-Ansari, media attache at the Qatari Embassy in Washington, did not respond to a request for comment.

Beyond the specific concern about Qatar potentially holding influence over Trump, the jet deal also escalated deeper concerns among critics that Trump, his family and his administration are using their political influence to improperly enrich themselves more broadly — including through the creation of a $Trump cryptocurrency meme coin and a promised Washington dinner for its top investors.

Experts and other critics have for years accused Trump of violating constitutional constraints on the president and other federal officials accepting gifts, or “emoluments,” from foreign states without the express approval of Congress.

During Trump’s first term, allegations that he was flouting the law and using his office to enrich himself — including by maintaining an active stake in his golf courses and former Washington hotel while foreign dignitaries seeking to curry favor with him racked up massive bills there — went all the way to the Supreme Court before being dismissed as moot after he’d been voted out of office.

Since Trump’s return to office, however, concerns over his monetizing the nation’s highest office and the power and influence that come with it have exploded once more — and from disparate corners of the political landscape.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), left, speaks with Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security oversight hearing on May 8, 2025, on Capitol Hill in Washington.

(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)

In a speech last month on the Senate floor, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) alleged dozens of examples of Trump and others in his family and administration misusing their positions for personal gain — what Murphy called “mind-blowing corruption” in Trump’s first 100 days.

Murphy mentioned, among other examples, the meme coin and dinner; corporations under federal investigation donating millions to Trump’s inaugural fund and those investigations being halted soon after he took office; reports that Trump has sold meetings with him at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida for millions of dollars; and Donald Trump Jr.’s creation of a private Washington club with million-dollar dues and promises of interactions with administration officials.

Murphy also noted Trump’s orders to fire inspectors general and other watchdogs meant to keep an eye out for corruption and pay-to-play tactics in the federal government, and his scaling back of laws meant to discourage it, such as the Foreign Agents Registration Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Corporate Transparency Act.

“Donald Trump wants to numb this country into believing that this is just how government works. That he’s owed this. That every president is owed this. That government has always been corrupt, and he’s just doing it out in the open,” Murphy said. “But this is not how government works.”

When news of the Qatar jet deal broke, Murphy joined other Democratic colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a statement denouncing it.

“Any president who accepts this kind of gift, valued at $400 million, from a foreign government creates a clear conflict of interest, raises serious national security questions, invites foreign influence, and undermines public trust in our government,” the senators wrote. “No one — not even the president — is above the law.”

Other lawmakers — from both parties — have also weighed in.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) blasted Trump’s acceptance of the plane as his “lastest con” and a clear attempt by the Qatari government to “curry favor” with him.

“This is why the emoluments clause is in the Constitution to begin with. It was put in there for a reason,” Schiff said. “And the reason was that the founding fathers wanted to make sure that any action taken by the president of the United States, or frankly any other person holding federal public office, wasn’t going to be influenced by getting some big gift.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said in an interview with MSNBC on Monday that he did not think it was a “good idea” for Trump to accept the jet — which he said wouldn’t “pass the smell test” for many Americans.

Experts and those further out on the American political spectrum agreed.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law and an expert in constitutional law, said the gift of the jet, “if it is to Trump personally,” clearly violates a provision that precludes the president from receiving any benefit from a foreign country, which America’s founders barred because they were concerned about “foreign governments holding influence over the president.”

Richard Painter, the top White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, said that Trump accepting the jet would be unconstitutional. And he scoffed at the ethics of doing business with a nation that has been criticized as having a bleak human rights record.

“After spending millions helping Hamas build tunnels and rockets, Qatar has enough to buy this emolumental gift for” Trump, Painter wrote on X. “But the Constitution says Congress must consent first.”

Painter criticized the White House justifying the deal by saying that Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi had “signed off” on it, given Bondi’s past work for the Qatari government, and said he knew of no precedent for a president receiving a lavish gift without the approval of Congress. He noted that Ambassador Benjamin Franklin received a diamond-encrusted snuff box from France’s King Louis XVI, but only with the OK from Congress.

Robert Weissman, co-president of the progressive nonprofit Public Citizen, said that it was unclear whether Trump would heed the cautionary notes coming from within his own party, but that the Republican-controlled Congress should nonetheless vote on whether the jet was a proper gift for him to receive.

“If the members of Congress think this is fine, then they can say so,” Weissman said, “and the voters can hold them accountable.”

Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro, a prominent backer of Trump, criticized the deal on his podcast Monday, saying that Trump supporters would “all be freaking out” if Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, had accepted it.

“President Trump promised to drain the swamp,” Shapiro said. “This is not, in fact, draining the swamp.”

United States President Donald Trump has announced that he will lift all sanctions on Syria, declaring that it was time for the country to “move forward”, giving a nation devastated by years of ruinous civil war a crucial opening in reviving its shattered economy.

Speaking at an investment forum in Saudi Arabia’s Riyadh during his Middle East tour on Tuesday, Trump said the punitive measures had achieved their “purpose” and were no longer needed.

“I will be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria in order to give them a chance at greatness,” he said. “It’s their time to shine. We’re taking them all off”.

The president ended his remarks with a direct message to Damascus: “Good luck, Syria. Show us something very special.”

The announcement marks a dramatic shift in Washington’s yearslong policy towards Syria, where sanctions targeted ousted President Bashar al-Assad’s government during years of war, and the country at large over its crackdown on dissent and human rights abuses during that nearly 14-year period.

Syrians suffered hundreds of thousands of deaths, and millions were displaced during the war.

“There’s a new government that will hopefully succeed in stabilising the country and keeping peace,” Trump said in Riyadh, referring to the interim government led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa.

Trump noted that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio will meet Syria’s Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani in Turkiye later this week, and says his decision to end the sanctions was influenced by conversations with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Al-Shaibani welcomed the announcement, calling it a “a pivotal turning point for the Syrian people as we move toward a future of stability, self-sufficiency, and true reconstruction after years of devastating war”, according to the state-run SANA news agency.

Key obstacle removed, but others remain

The sanctions relief will be welcomed by al-Sharaa’s government, which also says it wants to transition away from the corrupt system that gave al-Assad loyalists privileged access to government contracts and kept key industries in the hands of the al-Assad family and its Alawite base.

Omar Rahman, a fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, says that while it is important not to overestimate the significance of Trump’s promise to lift sanctions on Syria, it is an important step in the future of a nation devastated by years of war.

“It takes away a key obstacle in their ability to establish some kind of economic development, economic prosperity,” he told Al Jazeera. “But there are plenty of other obstacles and challenges the country is facing.”

Rahman said that Saudi Arabia helped push the US towards its decision to drop sanctions.

“I think the United States was really dragging its feet on sanctions – they wanted to use it as leverage in order to push other policies in Syria,” he said, adding that besides Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates were also pushing for this pivotal outcome.

“This wasn’t something that was too difficult for Trump to do,” Rahman added. “He didn’t need to get permission from anybody. He didn’t even need consent from Congress.”

Syria’s new government has sought to rebuild the country’s diplomatic ties, including with international financial institutions. It also counts on wealthy Gulf Arab states to play a critical role in financing the reconstruction of Syria’s war-ravaged infrastructure and reviving its economy.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar announced in April that they will settle Syria’s debt to the World Bank totalling roughly $15m.

The United Kingdom has also removed its sanctions on 12 Syrian government entities, including the Ministries of Defence and Interior and the General Intelligence Directorate.

But military attacks persist.

Israel has carried out multiple air strikes in Syria since al-Assad’s removal. The country’s presidency denounced an Israeli attack near the presidential palace in Damascus as a “dangerous escalation” earlier this month.

Tensions between Israel and Syria soared after the Israeli government accused the Syrian authorities of failing to protect the country’s Druze minority.

The Syrian government and Druze came to an agreement after days of violence, the latter saying they did not need Israel’s intervention or protection.

Israel has previously called Syria’s interim government a “terror group from Idlib that took Damascus by force”.

Decades needed to recover

A February report by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) estimated that at current growth rates, Syria would need more than 50 years to return to the economic level it had before the war, and it called for massive investment to accelerate the process.

The UNDP study said nine out of 10 Syrians now live in poverty, one-quarter are jobless and Syria’s gross domestic product (GDP) “has shrunk to less than half of its value” in 2011, the year the war began.

Syria’s Human Development Index score, which factors in life expectancy, education and standard of living, has fallen to its worst level since it was first included in the index in 1990, meaning the war erased decades of development.

The UNDP report estimated that Syria’s “lost GDP” during the 2011-2024 war to be about $800bn.

WASHINGTON — House Republicans proposed sweeping tax breaks Monday in President Trump’s big priority bill, tallying at least $4.9 trillion in costs so far, partly paid for with cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy programs used by millions of Americans.

The House Ways and Means Committee named its package “THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL” in all capital letters, a nod to Trump himself. It seeks to extend the tax breaks approved during Trump’s first term — and boost the standard deduction, child tax credit and estate tax exemption — while adding new tax breaks on tipped wages, overtime pay, Social Security benefits and auto loans that Trump promised during his campaign for the White House.

There’s also a tripling of the state and local tax deduction, called SALT, from $10,000 up to $30,000 for couples, which certain high-tax state GOP lawmakers from New York and California already rejected as too meager. Private universities would be hit with a hefty new tax on their endowments, as much as 21%, as the Trump administration goes after the Ivy League and other campuses. And one unusual provision would terminate the tax-exempt status of groups the State Department says support “terrorists,” which civil society advocates warn is a way to potentially punish those at odds with the Trump administration.

Overall, the package is touching off the biggest political debate over taxes, spending and the nation’s priorities in nearly a decade. Not since 2017 has Congress wrestled with legislation as this, when Republicans approved the Trump tax cuts but also failed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. The cost assessments are only preliminary, and expected to soar.

“Republicans need to UNIFY,” Trump posted on social media before departing for a trip to the Middle East.

Trump said when he returns to Washington, “we will work together on any and all outstanding issues, but there shouldn’t be many — The Bill is GREAT. We have no alternative, WE MUST WIN!”

But one key Republican, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, implored his party not to impair Medicaid, arguing that cutting healthcare to pay for tax breaks is both “morally wrong and politically suicidal.”

“If Republicans want to be a working-class party — if we want to be a majority party — we must ignore calls to cut Medicaid and start delivering on America’s promise for America’s working people,” Hawley wrote in the New York Times.

Late Monday, the House Agriculture Committee released its proposals — cutting $290 billion from federal nutrition programs, in part by shifting costs to the states and requiring able-bodied adults without dependents to fulfill work requirements until they are 64 years old, rather than 54, to qualify for food aid.

Round-the-clock work ahead

As Republicans race toward House Speaker Mike Johnson’s Memorial Day deadline to pass Trump’s big bill, they are preparing to flood the zone with round-the-clock public hearings starting Tuesday and stitch the various sections together in what will become a massive package.

The politics ahead are uncertain. The bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation said Monday that tax breaks would reduce revenue by $4.9 trillion over the decade — and that was before Trump’s new tax breaks were included.

Texas Rep. Chip Roy, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, warned the price tag could climb to $20 trillion, piling onto the deficits and debt.

“I sure hope House & Senate leadership are coming up with a backup plan,” Roy posted on social media, “…. because I’m not here to rack up an additional $20 trillion in debt over 10 years.”

House Republicans have been huddling behind closed doors, working out final provisions in the 389-page tax portion of the package.

The legislation proposes to boost the standard deduction many Americans use by $2,000, to $32,000 per household, and increase the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,500 for four years. It adds a new requirement focused on preventing undocumented immigrants from benefiting from the credit even if the children are U.S. citizens, which the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank, estimates would affect 4.5 million children who are U.S. citizens or lawful residents.

It would also increase the estate tax exemption, which is now $14 million, to $15 million and index future increases to inflation.

As for the president’s promises, the legislation includes Trump’s “no taxes on tips” pledge, providing a deduction for those workers in service industry and other jobs that have traditionally relied on tips. It directs the Treasury secretary to issue guidance to avoid businesses gaming the system.

The package also provides tax relief for automobile shoppers with a temporary deduction of up to $10,000 on car loan interest, applying the benefit only for those vehicles where the final assembly occurred in the United States. The tax break would expire at the end of Trump’s term.

For seniors, there would be a bolstered $4,000 deduction on Social Security wages for those with adjusted incomes no higher than $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for couples.

But one hard-fought provision, the deduction for state and local taxes known as SALT, appears to be a work in progress. The legislation proposes lifting the cap to $15,000 for single filers and $30,000 for couples, but with a reduction at higher incomes — about $200,000 for singles and $400,000 for couples.

“Still a hell no,” wrote Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) on social media.

Battle over Medicaid, food aid

Meanwhile, dozens of House Republicans have told Johnson and GOP leaders they will not support cuts to Medicaid, which provides some 70 million Americans with healthcare, nor to green energy tax breaks that businesses back home have been relying on to invest in new wind, solar and renewable projects.

All told, 11 committees in the House have been compiling their sections of the package as Republicans seek at least $1.5 trillion in savings to help cover the cost of preserving the 2017 tax breaks, which are expiring at the end of the year.

The final section from the Agriculture Committee proposed cutting the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program, known as SNAP, by expanding work requirements, limiting future expansions of the program and forcing states to shoulder more of the cost.

Along with new work requirements for older Americans, it would also require some parents of children older than 7 to work to qualify, down from 18 years old. Only areas with unemployment rates over 10% would be eligible for waivers.

Some Republicans have already balked at the increased costs to the states, which would be required to contribute at least 5% of the cost of SNAP allotments beginning in 2028.

At the same time, the legislation would invest $60 billion in new money for agriculture programs, sending aid to farmers.

On Sunday, House Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee unveiled the cost-saving centerpiece of the package, with at least $880 billion in cuts largely to Medicaid to help cover the cost of the tax breaks.

While Republicans insist they are simply rooting out “waste, fraud and abuse” to generate savings with new work and eligibility requirements, Democrats warn that millions of Americans will lose coverage. In the 15 years since Obamacare became law, Medicaid has only expanded as most states have tapped into federal funds.

A preliminary estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the proposals would reduce the number of people with healthcare by 8.6 million.

To be eligible for Medicaid, there would be new “community engagement requirements” of at least 80 hours per month of work, education or service for able-bodied adults without dependents. People would also have to verify their eligibility to be in the program twice a year, rather than just once.

There are substantial cuts proposed for green energy programs and tax breaks, rolling back climate-change strategies from the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act.

Mascaro and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP writers Amanda Seitz, Leah Askarinam and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed two lawsuits on Tuesday challenging a Trump administration policy that would deny the state billions of dollars in transportation grants unless it follows the administration’s lead on immigration enforcement.

“Let’s be clear about what’s happening here,” Bonta said in a statement. “The President is threatening to yank funds to improve our roads, keep our planes in the air, prepare for emergencies, and protect against terrorist attacks if states do not fall in line with his demands.”

“He’s treating these funds, which have nothing to do with immigration enforcement and everything to do with the safety of our communities, as a bargaining chip,” Bonta added.

The lawsuits, filed with a coalition of states against the Departments of Transportation and Homeland Security, argue that imposing the new set of conditions across a broad range of grant programs exceeds the administration’s legal authority.

Last month, Trump signed an executive order aiming to identify and possibly cut off federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities and states, which limit collaboration between local law enforcement and immigration authorities.

“It’s quite simple,” said White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt in a briefing announcing the executive order. “Obey the law, respect the law, and don’t obstruct federal immigration officials and law enforcement officials when they are simply trying to remove public safety threats from our nation’s communities.”

Cities and states that find themselves on the Trump administration’s list could also face criminal and civil rights lawsuits, as well as charges for violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

During Trump’s first term in 2018, California legislators passed a pioneering sanctuary law, the California Values Act.

California receives more than $15.7 billion in transportation grants annually to maintain roads, highways, railways, airways and bridges, Bonta’s office said. That includes $2 billion for transit systems, including buses, commuter rail, trolleys and ferries.

The state also receives $20.6 billion in yearly homeland security grants to prepare for and respond to terrorist attacks and other catastrophes. Those funds include emergency preparedness and cybersecurity grants.

But the coalition of states — California, Illinois, New Jersey and Rhode Island — argued that because such grant funding has no connection to immigration enforcement, the Trump administration cannot impose criteria that forces states to comply with its vision of enforcement.

“President Trump doesn’t have the authority to unlawfully coerce state and local governments into using their resources for federal immigration enforcement — and his latest attempt to bully them into doing so is blatantly illegal,” Bonta said.

This story will be updated.

A group of white South Africans granted refugee status have arrived in the US. The Trump administration says white South Africans suffer oppression. The welcome for white South Africans contrasts with an aggressive deportation policy for other ethnic groups.