Trumps

During his first year, U. S. President Donald Trump’s aggressive negotiating style led to some gains with other countries, but when it comes to Iran, this approach seems to be failing. Instead of softening his stance, Trump has shown increasing frustration over the ongoing crisis, which has lasted for 11 weeks, and his tough tactics might hinder efforts to end the conflict that is impacting the global economy.

Analysts believe that one key issue is the Iranian leaders’ need to maintain their image at home, complicating any negotiations. Despite the U. S. and Israeli strikes weakening Iran’s military, Iran still controls the important Strait of Hormuz, allowing it to exert significant influence. Trump’s strategy has been marked by extreme demands and mixed messages, which may not lead to a quick resolution. His desire to frame any outcome as a U. S. victory, while expecting total defeat for Iran, poses further challenges, as no government, including Iran’s, can afford to be seen as surrendering.

The deadlock with Iran happens as Trump faces domestic pressures, including rising gasoline prices and low approval ratings due to an unpopular war ahead of the midterm elections. White House spokesperson Olivia Wales defended Trump’s tactics, claiming that he is a skilled negotiator and suggesting that Iran is becoming more desperate for a resolution.

In a notable threat, Trump warned on social media of destroying Iran’s civilization if a deal is not reached. He later backed down but has repeated his threats to damaging Iranian infrastructure. Trump’s harsh language towards Iranian leaders has continued, and while he claims Iran is on the verge of collapse, the Iranian response has been to portray their endurance as a victory.

Inside the White House, there has been no effort to moderate Trump’s messaging. Polls show his core supporters remain behind him, but some former allies now criticize his extreme threats and the ongoing conflict.

Some of Trump’s strongest statements on his Truth Social platform have come at crucial moments, like when he announced a blockade of Iran’s ports, which led to Iranian retaliation and threatened a fragile ceasefire. He recently rejected a peace proposal from Iran, calling it a “piece of garbage. ” Analysts like Dennis Ross said Trump’s lack of consistency in messaging undermines his intentions. During a visit to Beijing, Trump avoided harsh comments on Iran, focusing instead on relations with China, an ally of Iran.

Some experts believe it would be beneficial for Trump to lower his rhetoric if he truly wants to resolve the conflict. Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Saeed Khatibzadeh, criticized Trump for talking too much. Trump claims that his unpredictability is a negotiation tactic, which has sometimes worked in trade discussions. However, in situations like the military actions in Venezuela and the Gaza ceasefire talks, his pressure tactics had positive outcomes.

Despite his desire to seem dangerous in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, analysts say this strategy is unlikely to succeed, given the entrenched nature of Iran’s leadership and their pride. Trump’s threats may have strengthened Iran’s current hardline rulers, who trust him even less after U. S. attacks during negotiations. Nate Swanson, a former State Department official, noted that the expectation of Iran capitulating under pressure is a misconception.

Barbara Leaf pointed out that Trump’s approach has been based on a misunderstanding of Iran’s resilience. Some experts warn that his tactics could backfire, making Iran more determined to develop nuclear capabilities for self-protection. There is a mismatch in timelines, as Trump prefers quick deals while Iran often prolongs negotiations. Academic Abdulkhaleq Abdullah suggested that Iran’s inflexibility is a bigger issue than Trump’s statements. Trita Parsi argued that Iranian leaders might see Trump’s unpredictable behavior as a sign of desperation, leading them to wait him out.

With information from Reuters

Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping plan to ‘further strengthen the comprehensive partnership’, the Kremlin says.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin will pay an official visit to China from May 19 to 20, the Kremlin has announced.

Putin and his Chinese counterpart, President Xi Jinping, plan to “further strengthen the comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation” between Moscow and Beijing, the Kremlin said in a statement.

Putin is also scheduled to discuss economic and trade cooperation with Chinese Premier Li Qiang.

Russia’s TASS news agency reported that the visit is timed to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation, a key Moscow-Beijing agreement signed in 2001.

News of Putin’s forthcoming trip arrives one day after United States President Donald Trump departed China following the first presidential visit to Beijing in almost a decade.

Although Trump and Xi touted several broad trade deals, they appeared to make little public progress on key sticking points related to Taiwan or the US-Israel war on Iran.

They also touched on the Russia-Ukraine war, in which China is officially neutral and Xi has presented himself as a mediator.

Still, Xi’s “no limits” alliance with Putin – announced just before the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 – has undercut that stance.

China has also denied reports from Reuters and other news agencies showing that Chinese firms have single-handedly sustained Russian drone production, in part by shipping engines mislabelled as “industrial refrigeration units” to drone assembly plants.

“We discussed – well, it’s one that we’d like to see settled,” Trump said in remarks reported by the Kyiv Post.

Trading partners

As Washington and Beijing’s relationship has been beset by tension, Chinese-Russian relations have only appeared to deepen in recent months.

Although the duo are not formal military allies, they maintain extremely close political and economic ties, with China stepping in to buy Russian oil and goods after Western nations cut ties with Moscow.

Before a four-day trip to China last August, Putin decried “discriminatory” Western sanctions and heaped praise on Beijing.

China is now by far Russia’s biggest trading partner by volume, and transactions are almost entirely carried out in Russian roubles and Chinese yuan, Putin said at the time.

Last month, Xi pressed for “closer and stronger strategic coordination” between Beijing and Moscow in a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Xi also visited Russia in May last year and pledged to stand with Moscow against “unilateralism and hegemonic bullying”.

NEW YORK — A federal immigration court in Lower Manhattan has come to represent the Trump administration’s deportation campaign in New York City, with agents carrying out chaotic and sometimes violent arrests in the hallway as migrants leave hearings.

Now the court is serving as a front in a different kind of battle: one of the city’s most closely watched congressional races.

In the Democratic primary between incumbent U.S. Rep. Dan Goldman and former city Comptroller Brad Lander — for a district so solidly blue that the June primary is considered its deciding election — both candidates have made the Trump administration’s treatment of migrants at 26 Federal Plaza a feature of their campaigns, but with decidedly different approaches.

Goldman — an heir to the Levi Strauss denim fortune and former prosecutor who was lead counsel for President Trump’s first impeachment — has approached the topic with a lawyerly bent that leverages the power of his office.

He sued the administration to open immigration detention centers to members of Congress, conducts oversight visits and turned his office across the street into what he’s called a triage center that connects immigrants with advocacy groups and legal services that has, his campaign said, helped more than 30 people get released from federal custody.

After a recent visit, Goldman credited his oversight work as a reason conditions at a holding facility inside the building have improved.

“What you see from our multipronged approach is the way that I push back, which is not performative, but it is substantive,” he told the Associated Press outside 26 Federal Plaza after he toured the detention center that is closed to the public.

Meanwhile, Lander — a progressive city government stalwart who is running with the support of Mayor Zohran Mamdani — has acted as protester and court observer, watching hearings and attempting to accompany immigrants out of the building past masked federal agents.

His efforts have gotten him arrested twice, with the most recent case headed to a trial scheduled to take place just before the primary.

“I would characterize his oversight function as strongly worded letters,” Lander told AP when asked about Goldman’s approach. “And my oversight function is: Show up with hundreds of your neighbors and bear witness and accompany people and demand access and stay until they give it to you or they arrest you.”

Lander’s first arrest happened last year when he linked arms with a person authorities were attempting to detain in the hallway outside the court. Lander was running for mayor at the time, and the arrest gave his campaign a jolt of excitement at a time when Mamdani and former Gov. Andrew Cuomo were considered the front-runners in the race.

A few months later, after losing the mayoral primary but not long before launching his congressional campaign, Lander was arrested again during a large protest at the building and hit with a misdemeanor obstruction charge.

But instead of accepting a deal that would have made the case go away in six months, Lander instead opted to go to trial. He said the case would extract information about the federal government’s immigration enforcement efforts at the building during a tense period that predates Goldman’s oversight visits.

Goldman dismissed Lander’s efforts as performative.

“I don’t understand why someone would reject a dismissal of a case so that he can have a public trial, ostensibly to ask for information that I could provide him whenever he wanted because I have the answers from doing my oversight,” he said.

This week, Lander returned to 26 Federal Plaza to sit in on hearings. But just before entering the building, his team got word that federal agents were lingering outside an immigration hearing at a different federal courtroom in a building across the street. He raced over and eventually found the agents, who were wearing masks and milling around in the court’s waiting room.

“The challenge is trying to figure out who they’re going to arrest,” Lander said, popping out of the hearing, where he sat in a back row and took notes. After a while, the agents walked away from the hearing room, down a hallway and exited the floor. It was not clear why they left.

“Maybe we have different styles,” Lander said of his opponent after the agents departed. He later went back across the street and filmed a campaign video in front of 26 Federal Plaza.

Izaguirre writes for the Associated Press.

Before arriving for his high-stakes summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, United States President Donald Trump aimed to set expectations high.

He said he would urge Xi to “open up” China’s economy and announced a delegation of top business executives, including Tesla’s Elon Musk, Apple’s Tim Cook and Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, to accompany him.

As Trump and Xi prepare to wrap up two days of meetings on Friday, the expectations for their summit’s outcome among observers generally are modest at best.

While Trump and Xi are anticipated to extend the one-year pause in their trade war agreed to in South Korea in October, the expectations are for a stabilisation – not revitalisation – in ties between the world’s two largest economies, which are locked in a rivalry that spans everything from trade and artificial intelligence to the status of Taiwan.

“It is important to be clear-eyed about the state of relations here,” Claire E Reade, a senior counsel at Arnold & Porter who previously worked on China at the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR), told Al Jazeera.

“China does not trust the US, and China wants to beat the US in what it sees as long-term global competition,” Reade said.

“This limits what can be agreed.”

While Trump and Xi have yet to announce the final contours of any trade agreement, the US side has flagged various business deals in the pipeline.

In a pre-recorded interview with Fox News that aired on Thursday, Trump said that China would invest “hundreds of billions of dollars” in companies run by the CEOs in his delegation, without providing further details.

Trump also said that Beijing had agreed to purchase US oil and 200 Boeing aircraft.

Trump administration officials have said that the sides are also discussing the establishment of a “Board of Investment” to manage investments between the countries.

“A realistic ‘opening up’ of the Chinese market would likely focus first on sectors where the economic complementarity is most obvious,” Taiyi Sun, an associate professor of political science at Christopher Newport University in Newport News, Virginia, told Al Jazeera.

“Agricultural goods such as soybeans and beef, as well as high-value-added manufacturing products like Boeing aircraft, are natural areas for expansion because they match existing Chinese demand with American export strengths.”

Sun said a “gradual” opening for US firms in sectors such as financial services could also be possible.

“But those areas are politically and institutionally more sensitive inside China, so progress would likely be incremental rather than immediate,” he said.

Gabriel Wildau, a senior vice president at global business advisory firm Teneo, said both sides will be seeking to address supply-chain vulnerabilities exposed by their trade war.

“The Iran war has likely increased the US’s vulnerability to export controls on rare earths, given the need to rebuild the munition stocks depleted in that war,” Wildau told Al Jazeera.

“Washington will therefore be willing to offer tariff relief – or at least assurances not to impose new tariffs – in exchange for Beijing’s commitment to keep rare earth exports flowing.”

While Trump and Xi agreed to roll back some trade barriers at their summit in South Korea, US-Chinese business and trade remain severely constrained after a decade of tit-for-tat economic salvoes between the sides.

The average US tariff on Chinese goods stood at 47.5 percent after the South Korea summit, up from 3.1 percent before Trump’s first term, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

China’s average tariff on US goods stood at 31.9 percent, up from 8.4 percent in 2018, according to the think tank.

Two-way goods trade amounted to about $415bn in 2025, down sharply from its 2022 peak of $690bn.

Carsten Holz, an expert on the Chinese economy at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, said China has less incentive to make concessions to the US than before, amid the rise of its domestic industries.

“Across many industrial sectors, PRC [People’s Republic of China] firms hold leading or controlling positions,” Holz told Al Jazeera.

“As a result, the PRC economy has little to gain from opening further to the US and is likely to only offer largely symbolic gestures.”

Deborah Elms, head of trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation in Singapore, voiced similar sentiments about the limits of US leverage.

“Basically, Trump expects China to buy more stuff from America and let US companies operate more freely in China,” Elms told Al Jazeera.

“What is he offering?” Elms said. “Very little, largely because Trump sees the bilateral relationship as one where the US has been fair and China has not.”

Reade, the former USTR official, said Xi would not agree to any measures that “harm Chinese interests in any way.”

“Instead, China will potentially give the US no-cost ‘gifts,’” Reade said, suggesting such measures could include the removal of trade barriers it placed on US beef.

“It may buy US goods it needs,” Reade said.

“If it allows purchases of US tech products, it will only be because it needs them right now,” she added, “But this does not interfere with China’s strategic plans to eliminate dependence on US technology over the longer term.”

US President Donald Trump returns to Beijing after nine years to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping. The trade war, conflict in Iran, and rising fears over Taiwan shape the talks. With global tensions mounting, can the two leaders find common ground, or will rivalry push the world further into crisis?

In this episode: 

Episode credits:

This episode was produced by Marcos Bartolomé and Sarí el-Khalili with Spencer Cline, Catherine Nouhan, Tuleen Barakat, Alexandra Locke, and our guest host, Kevin Hirten. It was edited by Tamara Khandaker. 

Our sound designer is Alex Roldan. Our video editors are Hisham Abu Salah and Mohannad al-Melhem. Alexandra Locke is The Take’s executive producer. 

Connect with us:

@AJEPodcasts on X, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube

NEW YORK — President Trump won’t have to pay an $83-million defamation award to a longtime advice columnist until the U.S. Supreme Court gets a chance to review the case or reject an appeal, according to a court entry Tuesday.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to a request by one of Trump’s lawyers to let the president delay the payment to E. Jean Carroll, though it required that Trump post a $7.4-million bond to cover any additional interest costs, a request Carroll’s attorney had made.

The appeals court late last month refused Trump’s request for a rare meeting of the full 2nd Circuit to hear an appeal of a three-judge panel’s affirmation of the January 2024 verdict.

Afterward, Trump attorney Justin D. Smith asked the 2nd Circuit to stay the effect of its decision upholding the award so that the president would not be forced to pay the judgment before the high court has a chance to consider an appeal.

Smith said last week there was a “fair prospect” that the Supreme Court will find in favor of Trump, who has called Carroll’s claims — first made publicly in 2019 — that she was sexually attacked by Trump in a Manhattan luxury department store dressing room in the spring of 1996, a “made-up scam.”

The $83-million award to Carroll, 82, came from a jury that briefly heard Trump testify and observed his animated behavior for several days.

In upholding the verdict, a 2nd Circuit panel wrote in September 2025 that Trump continued his attacks against Carroll for at least five years, making them “more extreme and frequent as the trial approached.”

“He also continued these same attacks during the trial itself,” the appeals court said. “In one such statement, issued two days into the trial, Trump proclaimed that he would continue to defame Carroll ‘a thousand times.’ ”

The jury had been instructed to accept the findings of a jury that in May 2023 awarded Carroll $5 million after concluding Trump sexually abused her in the department store and then defamed her after she published her account of it in a 2019 memoir.

Trump is challenging the $83-million award on several grounds, asserting “absolute immunity” for comments he made while president as he disavowed knowing Carroll and attacked her motivations, saying they were politically driven or arose from a desire to promote her memoir.

Sisak and Neumeister write for the Associated Press.

May 12 (UPI) — A nonpartisan office said Tuesday that President Donald Trump‘s proposed Golden Dome missile defense system could cost $1.2 trillion over two decades – far more than the $175 billion he said it would cost last year.

The Congressional Budget Office said in a report that this analysis isn’t based on final blueprints, as full details of the system’s architecture haven’t been announced, Time reported. It said this estimate shows the price of “one illustrative approach rather than an estimate of a full Administration proposal.”

The CBO said that acquisition costs for the system would alone cost more than $1 trillion, and of that, about 70 percent of the cost would be for the interceptor layer, orbital weapons meant to destroy missiles after they’re launched, The Hill reported. This would include about 7,800 satellites.

Gen. Mike Guetlein, the Pentagon official in charge of the project, said in March that it would cost about $185 billion. The CBO report said that this difference in estimated price may mean that the “objective architecture is more limited” for the project than the system accounted for by the CBO, The Hill reported.

Congressional Republicans have earmarked $25 billion for the project in the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The Pentagon has asked for $17 billion more in a reconciliation bill this year.

The Trump administration’s fiscal 2027 budget request, which includes $750 billion earmarked for the Golden Dome system, says the system “keeps Americans safe, while using innovative program management and acquisition approaches to prudently employ taxpayer dollars,” The Hill reported. Trump has said he wants the system operational by the end of his term.

The CBO said the system it used in its estimate could counter a limited attack but would be overwhelmed by a large-scale one, Time reported. Israel’s similar air-defense system, often called the Iron Dome, has intercepted missiles from Iran and other localized groups but is meant for a smaller area and shorter-range threats, as opposed to the United States’ need to defend a much larger area from long-range attacks, it said.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., requested the CBO report. He said Tuesday that the report shows the Golden Dome project “is nothing more than a massive giveaway to defense contractors paid for entirely by working Americans” that will “do little to advance American national security.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s plan to put weapons in space — pitched as a “Golden Dome for America” missile defense program — is estimated to cost $1.2 trillion over a 20 year period, according to a new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, a far heftier sum than the initial $175 billion price tag he gave last year.

The nonpartisan CBO report, published Tuesday, is described as an analysis that reflects “one illustrative approach rather than an estimate of a specific Administration proposal.”

The futuristic system was ordered by Trump in an executive order during his first week in office. He said then that he expected the system to be “fully operational before the end of my term,” which wraps up in January 2029.

“Over the past 40 years, rather than lessening, the threat from next-generation strategic weapons has become more intense and complex with the development by peer and near-peer adversaries of next-generation delivery systems,” Trump said in his executive order, justifying the need for the missile defense system.

The CBO’s estimates are in part based on a lack of details from the Defense Department about what and how many systems will be deployed, “making it impossible to estimate the long term cost” of the Golden Dome system, the report says.

The concept for the missile system is at least partly inspired by Israel’s multitiered defenses, often collectively referred to as the “Iron Dome,” which played a key role in defending it from rocket and missile fire from Iran and allied militant groups as it prosecutes the war on Iran alongside the U.S.

The U.S. Golden Dome is envisioned to include ground and space-based capabilities able to detect, intercept and stop missiles at all major stages of a potential attack.

Congress has already approved roughly $24 billion for the missile defense initiative through Republicans’ massive tax and spending measure signed into law last summer.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-OR, who requested the estimate from the CBO, said in response to the report that the missile defense project is “nothing more than a massive giveaway to defense contractors paid for entirely by working Americans.”

Last May, the president said the Golden Dome would cost $175 billion. The CBO last year estimated that just the space-based components of the Golden Dome could cost as much as $542 billion over the next 20 years.

Hussein writes for the Associated Press.

THE HAGUE — Venezuela ’s acting President Delcy Rodríguez told journalists Monday that her country had no plans to become the 51st U.S. state after President Trump said he was “seriously considering” the move.

Rodríguez was speaking at the International Court of Justice in The Hague on the final day of hearings in a dispute between her country and neighboring Guyana over the massive mineral- and oil-rich Essequibo region.

“We will continue to defend our integrity, our sovereignty, our independence, our history,” said Rodríguez, who assumed power in January following a U.S. military operation that ousted then-President Nicolás Maduro. Venezuela is “not a colony, but a free country,” she added.

Speaking to Fox News earlier on Monday, Trump said he was “seriously considering making Venezuela the 51st U.S. state,” according to a post by Fox News’ co-anchor John Roberts on social media. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the matter.

Trump has made similar comments about Canada.

Rodríguez went on to say that Venezuelan and U.S. officials have been in touch and are working on “cooperation and understanding.”

Before addressing Trump’s comments, Rodríguez defended her country’s claim to Essequibo at the United Nations’ highest court, telling judges that political negotiations — not a judicial ruling — will resolve the century-old territorial dispute.

The 62,000-square-mile territory, which makes up two-thirds of Guyana, is rich in gold, diamonds, timber and other natural resources. It also sits near massive offshore oil deposits currently producing an average 900,000 barrels a day.

That output is close to Venezuela’s daily production of about 1 million barrels a day and has transformed one of the smallest countries in South America into a significant energy producer.

Venezuela has considered Essequibo its own since the Spanish colonial period, when the jungle region fell within its boundaries. But an 1899 decision by arbitrators from Britain, Russia and the United States drew the border along the Essequibo River largely in favor of Guyana.

Venezuela has argued that a 1966 agreement sealed in Geneva to resolve the dispute effectively nullified the 19th-century arbitration. In 2018, however, three years after ExxonMobil announced a significant oil discovery off the Essequibo coast, Guyana’s government went to the International Court of Justice and asked judges to uphold the 1899 ruling.

Tensions between the countries further flared in 2023, when Rodríguez’s predecessor, Maduro, threatened to annex the region by force after holding a referendum asking voters if Essequibo should be turned into a Venezuelan state. Maduro was captured Jan. 3 during a U.S. military operation in Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, and taken to New York to face drug trafficking charges. He has pleaded not guilty.

Rodríguez did not address the referendum in her remarks, but she told the court that the 1966 agreement is designed to allow negotiations between Venezuela and Guyana to resolve the territorial dispute. And she accused Guyana’s government of undermining the agreement with the “opportunistic” decision to ask the court to address the dispute.

“At a time when the mechanisms established in the Geneva agreement were still fully in force, Guyana unilaterally chose to shift the dispute from the negotiating arena to a judicial resolution,” she said. “This change was not accidental; it coincided with the discovery in 2015 of the oil field that would become world-renowned.”

When hearings opened last week, Guyana’s foreign minister, Hugh Hilton Todd, told the panel of international judges that the dispute “has been a blight on our existence as a sovereign state from the very beginning.” He said that 70% of Guyana’s territory is at stake.

The court is likely to take months to issue a final and legally binding ruling in the case.

Venezuela has warned that its participation in the hearings does not mean either consent to, or recognition of, the court’s jurisdiction.

Quell and Cano write for the Associated Press. Garcia Cano reported from Mexico City.

May 8 (UPI) — Secretary of State Marco Rubio highlighted his support for NATO, the pope and Italy on Friday during his visit to the country, but said President Donald Trump may still continue social media attacks.

“The president will always speak clearly about how he feels about the U.S. and U.S. policy,” Rubio said after being asked by reporters in Rome if he would ask Trump to limit his verbal attacks. He said, “the president of the United States is always going to act on what’s in the best interest of the United States.”

He added that Trump’s decision to remove troops from Germany was already in the works.

“There was always a plan to do some shifting within NATO,” Rubio said. He added that the troops that are being removed from Germany “represent less than 14% of our total troop presence there.”

Rubio, who visited Pope Leo XIV with his wife and several State Department employees Thursday, gifted the pope a crystal football with the State Department’s logo on it, while the pope gave Rubio a pen made from an olive branch.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni gave Rubio documentation of his family’s Italian origins in Piedmont, in the country’s northwest.

Rubio said it was a “true honor” to get the documentation. He said visiting Piedmont is “one more reason to be back” in Italy. He’ll give a speech in Italian next time he visits, he said.

“I need to learn a third language,” Rubio said.

Meloni and Trump had been cordial until the president began attacking the pope and Italy stayed out of the war in Iran.

Meloni said the meeting was a “frank dialogue, between allies who defend their own national interests but who both know how precious Western unity is.”

Polls in Italy show that most Italians are against joining the war against Iran. Meloni said, “we are not at war, and we do not want to go to war.”

The White House’s newly released strategy for tackling the nation’s drug and addiction crisis calls for a number of ambitious public health approaches that some experts say are laudable but will be hampered by the administration’s own actions.

The sweeping 195-page National Drug Control Strategy, published May 4, advocates for making access to treatment easier than getting drugs, preventing young people from developing addictions in the first place, increasing support for people in recovery, and reducing overdose deaths.

Those broad goals are widely supported by public health researchers, addiction treatment clinicians, and recovery advocates.

But accomplishing such goals will be difficult in the face of the administration’s mass layoffs of federal employees, cancellation of research and community grants, attacks on organizations and practices that serve people who use drugs, and cuts to Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people that is the largest payer for addiction and mental healthcare nationwide.

Many components of the National Drug Control Strategy are “things that we would agree with and that we fully support,” said Libby Jones, who leads overdose prevention efforts at the Global Health Advocacy Incubator, a public health advocacy group.

But there are “disconnects in what the strategy says is important and then what they’re actually going to fund,” she said of the Trump administration. “Those inconsistencies feel particularly loud in this strategy.”

The White House’s National Drug Control Strategy, released every two years, is a touchstone document meant to lay out the federal government’s coordinated approach to what in recent decades has been one of the country’s defining problems.

Since 2000, more than 1.1 million people have died of drug overdoses. Although deaths have decreased recently, the numbers remain elevated compared with earlier decades, and research suggests overdose death rates among Black Americans and Native Americans are disproportionately high.

The strategy document published this week is the first of President Trump’s current term. In keeping with the administration’s approach to addiction issues, it places heavy emphasis on law enforcement efforts to reduce the supply of illicit drugs. The document repeatedly refers to the ongoing “war” against “foreign terrorist organizations” — the Trump administration’s term for drug cartels — and touts increased enforcement at U.S. borders.

It also outlines plans to implement artificial intelligence technologies to screen for illicit drugs brought into the country and wastewater testing to detect illegal drug use nationwide.

The second half of the strategy focuses on reducing the demand for drugs through public health prevention efforts, addiction treatment, and support for people in recovery. It promotes the role of religion in recovery and calls for the widespread use of overdose reversal medications, such as naloxone.

In a news release, the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy called the document a “roadmap” that will “continue dismantling the drug supply and defeating the scourge of illicit drugs in our country.”

The Trump administration did not respond to requests for comment about how the strategy aligns with its other actions.

In December, Trump signed a reauthorization of the SUPPORT Act, which continues several grants related to treatment and recovery and the requirement for Medicaid to cover all FDA-approved medications for opioid use disorder. In January, he announced the Great American Recovery Initiative, including a $100-million investment to address homelessness, opioid addiction, and public safety.

However, few details have been provided about the initiative, and in January, about a month after the SUPPORT Act passed, billions of dollars in addiction-related grants were abruptly terminated and reinstated within a frantic 24-hour period.

That “whiplash” left “a sense of instability and uncertainty in the field,” said Yngvild Olsen, a national adviser with the Manatt Health consultancy. She led substance use treatment policy at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, or SAMHSA, under the Biden administration and left about six months into Trump’s second term.

That insecurity was exacerbated by the president’s 2027 budget request, which proposes cuts to several addiction and mental health programs and the consolidation of key federal agencies working on those matters. Jones’ group and nearly 100 others in the field have signed a letter asking Congress to reject the proposals, as it did with similar requests last year.

The national drug strategy adds new, potentially contradictory information to this confusing landscape.

Increasing Access to Treatment

One of the most significant public health goals in the strategy, mentioned at least half a dozen times, is to make it easier to get treatment than it is to buy illegal drugs.

National data underscores the necessity: More than 80% of Americans who need substance use treatment don’t receive it.

The administration’s actions on health insurance may make it difficult to improve that statistic.

Medicaid is the main source of healthcare coverage for adults with opioid use disorder. When implemented, the Medicaid work requirements in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act are projected to strip that coverage from about 1.6 million people with substance use disorders.

The last time Medicaid rolls were purged — after COVID-era protections expired — many people who had been receiving medication treatment for opioid addiction stopped it and fewer people started treatment, according to a study published last year.

Olsen, who is also an addiction medicine doctor, said she loves the strategy’s emphasis on making treatment readily available to anyone who wants it. But she said that’s “hard to really imagine when now people may have to pay for it themselves because they may be losing their Medicaid insurance coverage.”

One analysis estimated the upcoming Medicaid changes could lead 156,000 people to lose access to medications for opioid use disorder and result in more than 1,000 additional fatal overdoses per year.

People with private insurance may be affected too.

The Trump administration has refused to enforce Biden-era regulations aimed at bolstering mental health parity, the idea that insurers must cover mental illness and addiction treatment comparably to physical treatments. And recently, the administration said it would redo those regulations altogether, raising fears that addiction treatment could become increasingly unaffordable.

The administration did not respond to specific questions about how it reconciles its actions on Medicaid and parity with the goal of increasing treatment.

Prioritizing Prevention

The strategy highlights preventing addictions before they begin as one of the keys to reducing demand for drugs. It calls for “promoting a drug-free America as the social norm” and implementing school and community-based programs that are backed by science.

“Investing in primary prevention, before drug use starts, saves lives and resources,” it says, citing several studies about the cost-effectiveness of such programs.

Yet, the president’s budget proposes cuts to these types of programs, and federal layoffs have decimated the agencies that would implement such work.

The White House’s most recent budget request proposes cutting roughly $220 million from SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse Prevention and nearly $40 million from the Drug-Free Communities program.

Since the new administration started, SAMHSA has lost about half of its staff, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is down about a quarter.

“It’s not clear to me that they’re really going to be able to have the funds or the people to be able to carry that out,” Olsen said of the strategy’s prevention goals.

Another wrinkle appears in the strategy’s discussion of marijuana. The document points to marijuana use as one of the drivers of increasing drug use disorders and reports that “convergent evidence from multiple sources” suggests cannabis use increases the risk of psychosis. It calls for developing new tools to treat marijuana withdrawal and addiction.

However, just two weeks ago, the White House moved to reclassify medical marijuana to a lower tier of scheduled substances and is moving to hold a hearing to do the same for marijuana broadly.

“The administration, on the one hand, is moving in a direction of liberalizing access to cannabis,” Jones said, “but at the same time, in the strategy, it talks about the dangers of doing so.”

“There’s a disconnect there that just makes you question: Which one do you believe?” she added.

The administration did not respond to specific questions about its marijuana policies.

Stopping Overdose Deaths

One of the more surprising elements of the National Drug Control Strategy comes in the last paragraph of the final chapter. It focuses on public drug-checking programs, which often involve using test strips to help people who use drugs determine whether there are more-dangerous substances, such as fentanyl or xylazine, in the batch they bought. That helps them determine whether or how to safely use those drugs.

“Rapid test strips and similar technologies that detect fentanyl and other drugs are an important tool that should be legal,” the strategy document says.

However, SAMHSA announced in a recent letter that it would no longer pay for test strips, as part of the Trump administration’s “clear shift away from harm reduction and practices that facilitate illicit drug use.”

The administration has similarly attacked harm reduction programs in an executive order and its budget requests. It did not respond to specific questions about how this position interacts with the drug control strategy.

Regina LaBelle, a Georgetown University professor who served as acting director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy during the Biden administration, wrote about the contradiction in a blog post: “It is the height of rhetoric over reality to champion a tool while simultaneously cutting off the funding used to acquire it.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.

May 7 (UPI) — A group appointed by President Donald Trump made its final recommendations Thursday on changes to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, suggesting moves that would put more responsibility back on states and other authorities.

The changes also include reviews of agency staffing and privatizing flood insurance, The Hill reported.

“We need to refocus FEMA to get it back on what its mission originally was,” Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said. FEMA is part of Homeland Security.

Panel members said FEMA has become too involved in politics, specifically mentioning state assistance during the coronavirus epidemic, The New York Times reported. Recommendations included changes in how FEMA helps state and local governments with financial recovery.

“Disaster response is complicated and increasingly expensive,” the final report said. “With taxpayers bearing the burden of funding emergency management in the United States, it is the responsibility of every American to embrace their individual responsibility to lessen this burden by being prepared for disasters. … As our nation returns ownership of emergency management back to local communities and their states, tribes and territories, we encourage every American to review their insurance policies and personal disaster plans as well as engaging with their local community leaders to be better prepared when disaster strikes.”

Trump has said that FEMA’s work is too expensive and that state governors should be able to manage more on their own, the Times reported. He has also suggested in the past that the agency should “go away” entirely.

The changes recommended by the report would require congressional approval. They include tweaks meant to make the reimbursement process, once approved, quicker and more direct, and changes meaning the FEMA plays less of a role in helping disaster survivors find housing.

“These recommendations are all about accelerating federal dollars, streamlining the process, making it less bureaucratic, so that Americans can get the help they need on the worst day of their lives,” said former Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a member of the council. “And this is not a moment for bureaucracy, it is a moment for action, it is a moment for clarity.”

The Environmental Defense Fund said in a statement that Americans are facing increasingly severe weather and the council’s recommendations “don’t meet this reality.”

“The proposed changes would leave communities without the necessary funding, information and access to insurance to stay prepared and safe when disasters strike,” said Will McDow, the fund’s associate vice president for coasts and watersheds.

The group said the proposed changes would “shift enormous burdens onto states and communities and reduce government efficiency.”

NEW YORK — President Trump’s 10% global tariffs were declared unlawful by a federal trade court in a fresh blow to the administration’s economic agenda, several months after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated earlier levies he’d imposed.

A divided three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan on Thursday granted a request by a group of small businesses and two dozen mostly Democrat-led states to vacate the tariffs. Trump imposed the 10% duties in February under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which had never previously been invoked.

The court for now only immediately blocked the administration from enforcing the tariffs against the two companies that sued and Washington state, making clear that it was not issuing a so-called universal injunction. The panel found that the other states that sued lacked standing because they aren’t direct importers, instead arguing that they were harmed by having to pay higher prices for goods when businesses passed on tariff costs.

It wasn’t immediately clear what the ruling would mean for now for other importers that had been paying the contested levies.

The majority of the panel rejected the administration’s stance that “balance-of-payments deficits” — a key criterion for imposing the Section 122 tariffs — was “a malleable phrase.” They concluded that Trump’s proclamation imposing the levies failed to identify that such deficits existed within the meaning of the 1974 law, instead using “trade and current account deficits to stand in the place.”

The decision is the latest setback for the president’s effort to levy tariffs without input from Congress. Earlier duties — overturned by the Supreme Court on Feb. 20 — were issued under a different law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. In that case, the justices ruled Trump had exceeded his authority, kicking off a legal scramble by importers for almost $170 billion in refunds.

The U.S. Justice Department could challenge the trade court’s latest ruling by taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled against the Trump administration during the last tariff fight.

Section 122 allows presidents to impose duties in situations where the U.S. faces what the law defines as “fundamental international payments problems.” Even before Trump issued the tariffs, economists and policy experts debated whether the president would be able to build a solid legal framework using the statute.

In a proclamation declaring the use of Section 122, Trump said that tariffs were justified because the U.S. runs a “large and serious” trade deficit. He also pointed to the negative net flows of income from investments Americans have overseas and other things that showed the U.S. balance-of-payments relationship with the rest of the world was deteriorating.

Under the law, presidents have the ability to impose tariffs on goods imported into the U.S. on a short-term basis to address concerns about how money is flowing in and out of the country. Those concerns include “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits” and an “imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar.”

Unlike other legal options Trump might pursue to impose tariffs, Section 122 can be invoked without waiting for a federal agency to conduct an investigation to determine whether the levies are justifiable. But they can still be challenged in court.

The small businesses and states that sued argued that Section 122 became outdated when the U.S. ditched the gold standard decades ago. They say Trump improperly conflated “balance-of-payments deficits” with U.S. trade deficits in order to justify using the law.

They also allege that Trump’s order announcing the Section 122 tariffs was “riddled with omissions and mischaracterizations” around the meaning of a balance-of-payments deficit. The trade deficit cited by Trump is just one part of calculating the country’s balance of payments position, the states say.

Under Section 122, the president can order import duties of as much as 15%. The executive action can last 150 days, at which point Congress would have to extend it. Trump has said he would aim to increase the rate to 15% from 10%.

The states argue that Trump’s new tariffs violate other requirements in Section 122, including that such duties not be discriminatory in their application. The states argue that Trump’s new tariffs improperly exempt some goods from Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.

According to the complaint, the Trump administration conceded during the previous litigation over his IEEPA tariffs that trade deficits “are conceptually distinct from balance-of-payments deficits.”

The clash over Section 122 emerged just as the legal fight over refunds from Trump’s IEEPA tariffs began to heat up. A different judge in the Court of International Trade, U.S. Judge Richard Eaton, is overseeing the massive refund effort and ordered Customs and Border Protection to give him regular updates on a largely automated process the government will use to issue most refunds.

Larson and Tillman write for Bloomberg.

May 7 (UPI) — Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum rejected criticism from the U.S. President Donald Trump over her government’s anti-drug efforts after Trump suggested the United States could take unilateral action against drug cartels operating in Mexican territory.

“President Trump has said this several times before, but we are acting,” Sheinbaum said Thursday during her daily morning press conference.

During a White House event Wednesday, Trump said his administration already had reduced maritime drug trafficking by 97% and would now begin a “land phase” against drug smuggling operations.

“If they are not going to do the job, we will,” Trump said.

Sheinbaum defended her administration’s security strategy and said Mexico has achieved a nearly 50% reduction in homicides, dismantled 2,500 clandestine laboratories used to manufacture synthetic drugs and reduced fentanyl trafficking from Mexico into the United States.

The Mexican president also urged Washington to recognize the severity of the U.S. drug consumption crisis and strengthen efforts to stop the illegal flow of firearms into Mexico.

She said the trafficking of weapons strengthens the operational capacity of criminal organizations and fuels violence across several regions of the country.

During the press conference, Sheinbaum said the 2026 U.S. National Drug Control Strategy, presented Tuesday, marked the first time the Trump administration formally acknowledged the seriousness of domestic drug consumption in the United States.

According to Sheinbaum, the report recognizes that the United States faces “a serious drug consumption problem” by proposing prevention measures, public awareness campaigns and public health programs to combat addiction.

Asked about comments made Wednesday by U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to U.S. network NewsNation regarding possible new investigations into Mexican officials allegedly linked to drug trafficking, Sheinbaum again demanded evidence from U.S. authorities.

“Evidence, send evidence, because extradition treaties and mutual trust agreements require proof,” she said.

The Mexican president reiterated that drug trafficking and drug consumption must be addressed as a shared responsibility between both nations.

She said her government remains willing to cooperate with the Trump administration on security, migration and anti-drug policies, but stressed that any collaboration must respect Mexico’s sovereignty.

The 2026 U.S. National Drug Control Strategy identifies Mexico as the center of Washington’s anti-drug campaign, reaffirming the designation of Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations and classifying fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction.

The document conditions future security cooperation on measurable results in extraditions and the dismantling of drug laboratories, warning that the United States will use “all available capabilities” against criminal networks.

Who won the 2020 election?

Was the Capitol attacked on Jan. 6, 2021?

Can Donald Trump be elected to a third term as president?

No brainers, right?

The answers are, of course, “Joe Biden,” “yes” and “no.” Any fact- and reality-based American would say so. But that humongous class of people pointedly doesn’t include the president of the United States. And apparently for that reason, his nominees for federal judgeships — the very jobs in which you’d most want fact-based individuals — hem, haw, stammer and ultimately decline to give direct answers when Democratic senators test them with such easy-peasy questions at confirmation hearings.

One after another, month after month, Trump nominees for district and appeals courts across the land say that the answers to the questions are matters of debate, of “significant political dispute.” Well, they’re in dispute only because Trump says they are, as does every ambitious officeholder and office-seeker desperate to remain in the retributive ruler’s good graces — including, alas, would-be judges.

To watch them squirm and then squirt out the same rehearsed reply, the same legalistic word salad, just like the dozens of nominees before them would be hilarious (see below) if it weren’t so ominous for the rule of law in the nation.

Trump nominees for other high-ranking jobs, likewise prepped for Senate Democrats’ questions by their Trump handlers, give the same rote response. But the fact that candidates for lifetime seats on the federal bench, making decisions of life-changing consequences for millions of Americans, would choose to dodge the truth is most sickening.

In their truth-trolling to keep Trump happy, lest he yank their chance at new black robes, these candidates fail the test of judicial independence. As one Democrat, Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, told four district judge nominees last week at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, their humiliating hedging “on an issue of fact” — Biden won in 2020 — “reflects not only on your honesty but really on your fitness to be a federal judge.”

Indeed. That judicial nominees would curry Trump’s favor bodes ill for future federal jurisprudence in the one branch of government that’s stood up for the rule of law against Trump, repeatedly, when Congress and the Supreme Court have not. To be fair, a number of judges confirmed in Trump’s first term have been among the many who’ve ruled against his and his administration’s second-term abuses of power. Yet just as Trump has populated his Cabinet and executive branch with sycophants, unlike in Trump 1.0, he’s obviously applying new litmus tests to potential judges. One of them, clearly, is playing along with his election lies.

His nominees’ failure to speak truth to Trump’s power should be disqualifying. But they’re not disqualified, because the Senate is run by Republicans who share their fear of him.

That fact is a big reason to hope that Democrats capture the majority in November’s midterm elections and that, under new management, the Senate will finally take seriously its constitutional “advice and consent” responsibility to act as a check on Trump nominees for the final two years of his term — including, perhaps, one for the Supreme Court.

And, yes, this is Trump’s final term, for all of his teasing about “Trump 2028.” The Constitution’s 22nd Amendment says as much in its opening line: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.”

Yet the four wannabe district judges at last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing — Michael J. Hendershot of Ohio; Arthur Roberts Jones and John G.E. Marck, both of Texas; and Jeffrey T. Kuntz of Florida — struggled over that clear language.

All four hesitated when Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat, asked them to describe the amendment. He even read its initial words before querying Marck, “Is President Trump eligible to run for president again in 2028?”

Marck paused, then sputtered: “Senator, with ah, without considering all the facts and looking at everything, depending on what the situation is, this to me strikes as more of a hypothetical of something that could be raised.”

“It’s not a hypothetical,” Coons countered, then asked again whether Trump is “eligible to run for a third term under our Constitution.”

“Um, I would have to, to review the, the actual wording of it,” Marck blabbered.

Coons turned to the others: “Anybody else brave enough to say that the Constitution of the United States prevents President Trump from seeking a third term?” Silence.

“Anybody willing to apply the Constitution by its plain language in the 22nd Amendment?” Coons persisted. Crickets.

His Democratic colleague, Blumenthal, inquired of the foursome, “Who won the 2020 election?” All agreed in turn that Biden “was certified” the winner. None would say he “won” because — as we and they know —Trump insists to this day that he won; he’s turned the power of his “Justice” Department to trying to prove that obvious falsehood. Far be it from these future judges to contradict the president who nominated them.

Here’s Hendershot’s gibberish to Blumenthal’s simple query: “Senator, I want to be mindful of the canons here. I know this question has come up many times in these hearings and it’s become an issue of significant political dispute and debate. So, with, with that, I would say that, that President Biden was certified the winner of the 2020 election.”

After the others replied similarly, Blumenthal turned justifiably scathing: “It’s pretty irrefutable that Joe Biden won the election. But you’re unwilling to use that word because you are afraid. You are afraid. Of what? President Trump? That is exactly what we do not need on the federal bench today. We need jurists who are fearless and strong, not weak and pathetic.”

Apparently unshamed, each similarly demurred when he asked if the Capitol had been attacked. “You’ve seen the videos, have you not?” Blumenthal blurted.

No matter, Senator. These would-be triers of fact apparently won’t believe their eyes. Not when their patron, the president, insists on lies.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

Latest votes set up key Senate race, underscore Trump’s continued influence over Republican Party.

Primary elections in Indiana and Ohio have drawn the latest battle lines for the United States midterm elections in November, while underscoring Trump’s continued sway over Republican voters.

In Ohio, voters on Tuesday picked the candidates who will face off in the consequential election, with Democrats picking former Senator Sherrod Brown to take on Republican Jon Husted. Husted replaced Vice President JD Vance when he left his Senate seat for the White House.

The race is considered one of the most consequential, as Democrats face an uphill battle to retake control of the Senate, which currently has a 53-47 Republican majority. Brown has long styled himself as an economic populist, able to cut across party lines, while Republican groups have pledged to spend heavily to defend Husted.

Also in the “Buckeye State”, Trump ally Vivek Ramaswamy won the Republican gubernatorial nomination. Ramaswamy, who had a short tenure co-running Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) panel, will face off with Democrat Amy Acton, who led the state’s Department of Health during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In Indiana, meanwhile, Trump’s continued influence over the Republican Party was apparent, even as polls have seen his overall approval rating tank in recent weeks amid economic uncertainty and the US-Israeli war in Iran.

The US president had promised to target Republicans who pushed back on his calls for Indiana to redraw its congressional districts in advance of the midterms. Indiana was one of the few Republican-controlled state legislatures to reject the president’s pressure amid a wider flurry of state redistricting.

Five of the state-level candidates Trump targeted subsequently lost their primary elections on Tuesday. One candidate won, and one race remained too close to call.

State Senator Linda Rogers, one of the ousted Republicans, said Trump’s successful attempt to scuttle her race sent a clear message to others in the party considering opposing the president.

“If someone is going to ask you to take a tough vote, you may think twice about your conscience and what’s best for your community and instead what’s best for you and your career,” she said.

The primary comes shortly before US Representative Thomas Massie in Kentucky and US Senator Bill Cassidy in Louisiana, both Republicans, face punishing primary challenges. Trump is opposing both incumbents.

Massie has been one of the most outspoken critics of the administration, particularly when it comes to the US-Israeli war in Iran and the Department of Justice’s handling of documents related to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Cassidy had voted to impeach Trump in 2021 for his role in the January 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol and remained a critic throughout Trump’s 2024 re-election campaign.

While Trump’s influence remained strong in the Indiana primary, it does not necessarily spell Republican success in the general elections.

Recent polls have shown tanking support for Trump among independents, who are unaffiliated with either party and often serve as key deciding factors in close races.

For example, a recent NPR/PBS News/Marist Poll found that 63 percent of US residents nationally place a “great deal or good amount of blame” on Trump for high petrol prices. That rate was the same – 63 percent – for independents.

WASHINGTON — Most U.S. adults say the United States is no longer a great place for immigrants, according to a new AP-NORC poll, as about one-third of Americans report knowing someone impacted by the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement.

A new survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research of more than 2,500 U.S. adults finds about 6 in 10 say the country used to be a great place for immigrants but is not anymore. About one-third of U.S. adults — and more than half of Hispanic adults — say that over the last year they, or someone they know, have started carrying proof of their immigration status or U.S. citizenship, been detained or deported, changed travel plans, or significantly changed routines, such as avoiding work, school or leaving the house, because of their immigration status.

The poll comes as the Supreme Court is considering whether the Trump administration should be allowed to restrict birthright citizenship, as well as following months of sweeping immigration enforcement and mass deportations of immigrants.

Missouri retiree Reid Gibson, an independent, is furious about the Trump administration’s treatment of immigrants. He hopes America eventually becomes more welcoming to immigrants again, but he worries “it may take many years to reverse the damage that the Trump administration has inflicted” with its policies.

The poll finds that many Americans know someone who has been affected by Trump’s approach. That includes Gibson’s stepdaughter, who he says started carrying her passport because of concerns that her darker skin would make her a target in immigration crackdowns.

“It’s just plain wrong,” Gibson, 72, added. “This is not a good country for immigrants anymore.”

Americans’ personal connections to immigration enforcement

Many U.S. adults have adapted their lives to heightened immigration enforcement over the last year, as Trump increased detentions and sought to conduct the largest deportation operation in American history.

Democrats are more likely than independents or Republicans to know someone affected, and those with a personal connection are more likely to say the U.S. is no longer a great place for immigrants.

Kathy Bailey, a 79-year-old Illinois Democrat, has seen the administration’s immigration policies seep into the small-town swim class she regularly attends. She said two women in the class — both naturalized U.S. citizens — have begun carrying their passports when they leave home. Bailey says one of the women, who is from Latin America, has been especially worried about sticking out in an overwhelmingly white community.

“She’s an American citizen now, but she’s so scared that she has to carry her passport,” said Bailey. “She’s just another sweet old grandmother swimming at 5 in the morning.”

About 6 in 10 Hispanic adults say they or someone they know has been impacted by immigration enforcement in this way, much higher than among Black or white adults.

“This is terrible for these women!” Bailey said. “I’m just stunned at what we are coming to.”

Most believe the U.S. used to be a great place for immigrants

Nick Grivas, a 40-year-old from Massachusetts, said his own grandfather’s immigration to the U.S. from Greece has made him feel the impact of the president’s policies. It’s part of why he believes the U.S. stopped being a promising place for people seeking a new life.

“We can see how we’re treating children and the children of the immigrants, and we’re not viewing them as potential future Americans,” Grivas said.

Roughly 3 in 10 U.S. adults say the U.S. is a great place for immigrants, according to the poll, while about 1 in 10 say it never was. The belief that America is no longer great for immigrants is more common among Democrats and independents, as well as among those born outside the U.S.

Grivas, a Democrat, worries that federal policies against immigration could stunt the country by discouraging new arrivals from investing in their local communities, especially if they don’t believe they will be allowed to remain.

“You’re less willing to commit to the project if you don’t think that you’re gonna be able to stay,” he said.

Most support birthright citizenship, but also hold nuanced views

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in President Trump’s efforts to restrict birthright citizenship by declaring that children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.

About two-thirds of U.S. adults in the poll say automatic citizenship should be granted to all children born in the country, a view that most Democrats and independents back. Republicans are more doubtful: just 44% support birthright citizenship. The poll also shows that some people are conflicted, saying in general that they support birthright citizenship but also that they oppose it in some specific circumstances.

Among those who object to automatic citizenship is Linda Steele, a 70-year-old from Florida, who believes that only children born to American citizens should be granted citizenship. Steele, a Republican, does not believe foreigners living legally in the U.S. — whether for work or other reasons — should be able to have a child who automatically becomes a U.S. citizen.

“That shouldn’t be allowed,” she said. “They’re just here visiting or going to school.”

When asked about some specific circumstances, about 6 in 10 U.S. adults say they support birthright citizenship for children born to parents on legal U.S. tourist visas, while only about half support it for those born to parents who are in the country illegally. An even higher share, 75%, support automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country legally on work visas, with much of that increased support coming from Republicans saying this was an acceptable situation.

Kevin Craig, a 57-year-old from Wilmington, North Carolina, does not believe citizenship should be automatically granted. Craig, who leans conservative, believes there should be “at least some opportunity for intervention by a human being who can make some sort of a judgment.”

But he added: “I think my personal opinion is that I can’t think of a situation where it would not be granted.”

Sanders, Sullivan and Catalini write for the Associated Press. Sullivan reported from Minneapolis. Catalini reported from Morrisville, Pa. The AP-NORC poll of 2,596 adults was conducted April 16-20 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 2.6 percentage points.

Five months ago, President Trump was stinging from one of the first political defeats of his second term as Republican state senators defied him on redistricting in Indiana. Now he has proved he can still punish wayward party members after he endorsed a slate of challengers who defeated almost every one of those lawmakers he wanted to dislodge.

The results will likely bolster Trump’s confidence heading into upcoming Republican primaries where he wants to help oust more incumbents, including U.S Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky.

Indiana’s primary also ratchets up the pressure on Republican lawmakers in other states to move aggressively to redraw congressional district boundaries before the November elections. Alabama and Tennessee have already begun special sessions that could limit Black voters’ strength in Democratic-leaning districts, and some of Trump’s allies in South Carolina want to follow suit.

State Sen. Linda Rogers, one of the Indiana lawmakers who voted against redistricting and lost her seat Tuesday, said the outcome “will probably discourage others in other states.”

“If someone is going to ask you to take a tough vote, you may think twice about your conscience and what’s best for your community and instead what’s best for you and your career,” she said.

Redistricting efforts began last year, when Trump saw an opportunity to give Republicans an additional edge, but they were supercharged last week when the U.S. Supreme Court gutted a provision of the Voting Rights Act that influenced how political lines are drawn.

Trump’s success in Indiana, aided by more than $8.3 million in campaign cash in races that usually see very little spending, reaffirmed the president’s continued strength within a Republican Party that he has dominated for a decade, despite his inevitable slide toward lame-duck status and his sagging poll numbers.

“Historic night for Indiana as Republicans stood with me and President Trump to nominate some great America First conservatives,” Gov. Mike Braun, R-Ind., posted on social media. “I look forward to winning big in November and serving Hoosiers with this team in the statehouse!”

Trump backed primary challenges against seven Republican state senators who rejected his redistricting plan in December. Five of the president’s candidates won, and another race remained too close to call.

Trump was relatively restrained on social media about the voting. He shared a series of photos celebrating the victories of candidates he endorsed in Indiana and Ohio, which also held primaries Tuesday. But he otherwise passed on boasting or renewing his attacks on Massie or Cassidy.

Massie has been among the members of Congress who frustrated the president by pressing for release of the Jeffrey Epstein case files. Cassidy was among the Republican senators who voted to convict Trump on 2021 impeachment charges after the Jan. 6 riot.

James Blair, one of Trump’s top political advisers, was more direct, posting an image from the movie “Gladiator” depicting Russell Crowe’s ancient Roman character Maximus exulting after a combat victory.

Rogers, the Indiana state senator, faced almost $670,000 in television advertising against her, funded by political action committees associated with Braun and U.S. Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind.

She said she did not regret her vote against redistricting.

“It would have been easy for me to hit that ‘yes’ button,” she said. “To hear the number of people who asked me not to, then the number of people who thanked me, would mean I wasn’t representing them.”

Louisiana’s primary, in which Trump has endorsed U.S. Rep. Julie Letlow over Cassidy, is set for May 16. Kentucky, where Trump has endorsed Massie’s challenger, retired Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein, will hold its primary May 19.

Beaumont and Barrow write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans have added $1 billion in White House security upgrades to legislation that would fund immigration enforcement agencies, a proposed boost for President Trump’s ballroom project after a man was charged with trying to assassinate him at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner last week.

The GOP bill released late Monday would designate the money for the U.S. Secret Service for “security adjustments and upgrades” related to the ballroom project, which Trump and Republicans have been pushing since Cole Tomas Allen allegedly stormed the April 25 media dinner at the Washington Hilton with guns and knives. The legislation says the money would support enhancements to the ballroom project, “including above-ground and below-ground security features,” but also specifies that the money may not be used for non-security elements.

White House spokesperson Davis Ingle praised Republicans for including the money for the “long overdue” project, saying it would “provide the United States Secret Service with the resources they need to fully and completely harden the White House complex, in addition to the many other critical missions for the USSS.”

The money is part of a larger bill to pay for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, as Democrats have been blocking funds for both agencies since mid-February. Congress passed bipartisan legislation to fund the rest of the Homeland Security Department on April 30 after a record-long shutdown, but Republicans are using a partisan budget maneuver to push through the ICE and Border Patrol dollars on their own. The House has not released its bill yet, but the Senate is expected to start voting on its version of the legislation next week.

It is unclear exactly how the $1 billion would be used, and the amount far exceeds the proposed $400 million for construction of the ballroom. The White House has said in court documents that the East Wing project would be “heavily fortified,” including bomb shelters, military installations and a medical facility underneath the ballroom. Trump has said it should include bulletproof glass and be able to repel drone attacks.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued to block construction of the project, but a federal appeals court said last month that it can continue in the meantime.

The White House has said that private money would pay for the construction but public money would be used for security measures. Some Republicans have suggested that public money pay for all of it, arguing the security breach at the dinner shows the president needs a secure place to host events.

“It would be insane” to hold the dinner at a hotel again, said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who introduced a bill to pay for the ballroom’s construction with Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala.

Democrats have said they will oppose any efforts to pay for the ballroom.

“While Americans are struggling to make ends meet as a result of President Trump’s failed policies, Republicans are focused on providing tens of billions of dollars for the President’s vanity ballroom project and cruel mass deportation campaign,” said Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the U.S. Secret Service.

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — White House economists estimate that President Trump’s deals with pharmaceutical companies to drop some of their U.S. prescription drug prices to what they charge in other countries could save $529 billion over the next 10 years.

The analysis obtained by the Associated Press includes the first economy-wide projections behind a policy at the core of Trump’s pitch to voters going into November’s midterm elections for control of the House and Senate. Democratic lawmakers have been doubtful about the savings claimed by Trump and these new numbers are likely to trigger additional questions about the data.

Cost-of-living issues are at the forefront of voters’ concerns and higher energy prices tied to the Iran war have deepened the public’s anxiety. Trump has tried in part to address affordability concerns by focusing on his efforts to cut deals with companies so that the cost of prescription drugs in the U.S. would no longer be dramatically higher than in other affluent nations.

“Now you have the lowest drug prices anywhere in the world,” Trump said at a Friday rally before a crowd of seniors in Florida. “And that alone should win us the midterms.”

The analysis was done by administration officials for the White House Council of Economic Advisers. They also estimated that federal and state governments could save a combined $64.3 billion on Medicaid during the next decade because of what Trump calls his “most favored nation” policy on drug prices.

Few of the details of the deals struck by the Trump administration and 17 leading pharmaceutical companies have been made public, making it hard to independently verify the projected savings. The White House analysis sought to estimate the prospective savings as more medications come onto the market and fall under Trump’s framework — with one model in the report tallying the possible savings at $733 billion over a decade.

Trump and his Department of Health and Human Services have touted his drug-pricing deals as transformative and urged Congress to codify their principles into law. Democratic lawmakers have challenged the administration’s claims of savings. Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and 17 Senate Democrats in April proposed a measure requiring the administration to disclose the terms of the agreements signed by pharmaceutical companies.

“If these deals are so great, why is the Trump administration afraid of showing them to the public?” Wyden said when announcing the measure. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said his team would share details that didn’t include proprietary information or trade secrets.

The White House said it has not shared the text of the agreements because they include highly sensitive data that could move financial markets.

The potential savings estimated by the Trump administration would be substantial as Americans spent $467 billion on prescription drugs in 2024, according to the most recent government data available. The analysis is premised on the idea that foreign countries would also pay more for their prescription drugs, which would diversify drugmakers’ sources of revenue and preserve their ability to innovate with new treatments.

Outside economists have caveated that any savings might not flow directly to patients, many of whom already pay discounted prices for their drugs through their insurance coverage.

The Congressional Budget Office in October 2024 estimated that a plan similar to what Trump ended up adopting could reduce prescription drug prices by more than 5%, though the decrease “would probably diminish over time as manufacturers adjusted to the new policy by altering prices or distribution of drugs in other countries.”

The scope of the savings claimed by the Trump administration are likely to intensify the scrutiny by Democrats, who counter that any price reductions would be offset by higher costs for prescription drugs not covered by the “most favored nation” framework. One of their main critiques is that pharmaceutical companies have increased their profit margins while working with the administration.

In April, staff working for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., released an analysis that looked at 15 of the companies that have agreed to this drug-pricing plan and found that their combined profits jumped 66% over the past year to $177 billion. The report noted that the tax cuts Trump signed into law last year “exempted or delayed many of the most expensive drugs” from price negotiations with Medicare.

The Trump administration has countered that they consider Sanders’ critique to be flawed, saying that it’s based on the list prices for pharmaceutical drugs instead of the actual price that patients pay.

Boak writes for the Associated Press.