Trumps

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.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has shown an ability to make a lot of noise at the government agency known in recent years to be a little sleepy.

But his April 28 announcement that the Walt Disney Co.’s eight ABC TV stations will undergo an early review of their broadcast licenses is his loudest action yet taken on behalf of President Trump, who repeatedly threatened media outlets that he believes are critical of him.

Carr is calling for the review two years before any of the station licenses are up, citing the agency’s inquiry into Disney’s diversity, equity and inclusion policies and whether they violated federal anti-discrimination rules.

The timing of Carr’s move is raising eyebrows as it comes after First Lady Melania Trump’s call for the firing of ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over his April 23 comedy bit on the White House correspondents’ dinner. A tuxedo-clad Kimmel called Melania Trump “beautiful,” saying she had “the glow of an expectant widow.”

The first lady’s remarks came after a man armed with a shotgun, handgun and several knives breached security at the Washington black-tie event on April 25. The suspect, Cole Tomas Allen of Torrance, was arrested and faces three criminal charges, including attempting to assassinate the president.

Kimmel’s gag became ammunition for right-wing commentators, who claim the left is stoking political violence.

The host said the joke was about the age difference between the 79-year-old president and his wife. Kimmel denied it was a call for violence and has continued to mock the president on his show.

Carr insisted at a Washington news conference last week that his demand for a review is not related to Kimmel’s remarks.

Although many are skeptical, Carr, who was at the April 25 dinner, told The Times there would be an action related to ABC coming soon. The conversation occurred hours before the shots were fired.

The investigation into Disney’s practices began in March 2025, part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to reverse DEI initiatives across private companies, federal agencies, universities and other organizations.

After the 2020 police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, which spurred the Black Lives Matter movement, companies such as Disney and NBC-owned Comcast aggressively promoted their diversity efforts.

But experts believe Carr is acting on ABC at the behest of Trump, as the chairman has often expressed support on social media whenever the president criticizes one of the broadcast TV news outlets.

“It might be the case that Disney can get some early relief by saying this should be dismissed because this is really a 1st Amendment issue,” said James Speta, a professor at the Northwestern University School of Law. “We all know what’s going on here — the administration doesn’t like the speech that’s coming out of the talent on the broadcasting airwaves.”

Disney is not commenting on Carr’s DEI investigation, but it earlier defended the record of its TV stations, which are ratings leaders in most markets. “We are confident that record demonstrates our continued qualifications as licensees under the Communications Act and the First Amendment and are prepared to show that through the appropriate legal channels,” the company said.

Here’s a primer on what to know and the challenges Disney may face.

Why are TV stations licensed by the government?

Government licensing regulates the spectrum allocated to broadcast channels, largely to prevent interference between TV signals. When renewals come up, the license holder must demonstrate that the station is serving the public interest by providing local news, program diversity and educational and informational shows for children. The procedure once occurred every three years, but deregulation efforts have extended that period to the current span of eight years.

When was the last time a TV station faced a significant license renewal challenge?

The most notable recent example was Fox Corp.’s Philadelphia station WTXF, which was up for a license renewal in October 2023. Activist groups filing the challenge said Fox was unfit to own the outlet after a judge ruled earlier that year that the company’s Fox News Channel had spread falsehoods about voter fraud in the 2020 election.

Fox paid $787 million to settle a defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion Voting Systems that alleged the cable news channel damaged the company’s reputation.

Fox News, which operates on cable and satellite and is therefore not subject to FCC control, has a different management team than the parent company’s local TV stations, which mostly cover their communities and do not typically present political commentary. The FCC rejected the renewal challenge in January 2025, noting that none of the false information on Fox News was heard on the Philadelphia station. WTXF was not cited in Dominion’s lawsuit.

Are there any other examples?

Yes. Other White House administrations have threatened to pull TV station licenses in response to negative news coverage. At the height of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, Richard Nixon’s allies unsuccessfully attempted to challenge the TV licenses of three stations then owned by the Washington Post.

Has a company ever lost its broadcast license?

RKO General, a unit of the General Tire and Rubber Co., was the last company to lose broadcast TV station licenses in 1987, including Los Angeles outlet KHJ. The case was related to corporate malfeasance and not broadcast content on the stations.

The process to revoke the RKO licenses took seven years from the moment the FCC voted in favor of the move.

But isn’t this case different?

Yes. Although the rule Carr mentioned is legitimate, the FCC has rarely if ever acted on it, according to one veteran TV executive who was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. If Disney or any other company was found to violate the nondiscrimination rule, they would in previous eras probably be subjected to a just a fine, not the denial of a license, which would be viewed by many as government censorship.

What happens in the event that ABC licenses are not renewed?

Nothing immediately, as the licenses are in effect through 2028 to 2032, depending on the outlet. If Disney had to sell the stations, the price would probably be depressed due to pressure to unload the properties.

But public communications attorney Andrew Jay Schwartzman told The Times last month that the bar for denying a renewal is high and any effort would be tied up in court on constitutional grounds.

“The law intentionally sets out a very steep burden for the FCC to deny a license renewal; the process takes many years, during which time the licensee continues to operate normally under ‘continuing operating authority,’” Schwartzman said.

Iran protests as Trump announces ‘Project Freedom’ to escort stranded ships out of the Strait of Hormuz.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority sounded ready Wednesday to rule that the Trump administration may end the temporary protection that has been granted to more than 1.3 million immigrants from troubled countries.

Congress in 1990 authorized Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for noncitizens who could not safely return home because their native country was wracked by war, violence or natural disasters. If those people passed a strict background check, they could stay and work legally in this country.

But President Trump came to office believing too many immigrants had been granted permission to enter and stay indefinitely.

Last year, his Department of Homeland Security moved to cancel the temporary humanitarian protection for immigrants from 13 countries, including Venezuela, Haiti, Syria, Honduras and Nicaragua. Court challenges on behalf of Haitians and Syrians were consolidated into a single case, Mullin vs. Doe, which the justices heard Wednesday.

Immigrant-rights advocates challenged those decisions as political and unjustified, and they won orders from federal judges that blocked the cancellations.

But Trump’s lawyers filed an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court arguing the judges had overstepped their authority. They pointed to a provision in the 1990 law that bars “judicial review” of the government’s decision to end temporary protection for a particular country.

The justices ruled for the administration and set aside the lower court rulings in a series of 6-3 orders.

Faced with criticism over its brief and unexplained orders, the justices agreed to hear arguments on the TPS issue on the last day of oral arguments for this term.

But the ideological divide appeared to be unchanged.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said Congress had prohibited “judicial micromanagement” of these decisions, and none of six conservatives disagreed.

UCLA law professor Ahilan T. Arulanantham, representing several thousand Syrians, said the Homeland Security secretary had failed to consult the State Department, which says it is unsafe to travel there.

He said the government “reads the statute like it’s a blank check … to give the secretary the power to expel people who have done nothing wrong.”

Chicago attorney Geoffrey Pipoply, representing more than 350,000 Haitians, said the cancellations were driven by “the president’s racial animus toward non-white immigrants.”

The court’s three liberals argued the administration failed to follow the procedural steps required under the law. But that argument failed to gain traction.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett and her husband adopted two children from Haiti who are citizens. Like most of the conservatives, she asked few questions during the argument.

WASHINGTON — The Senate Banking Committee voted on party lines Wednesday to approve Kevin Warsh as the next chair of the Federal Reserve to replace Jerome Powell, a longtime target of President Trump’s insults for not cutting borrowing costs as far as the president wanted.

The vote was 13-11, with all Republican senators voting in favor and Democrats opposed.

Warsh is a former top Fed official but has also been a sharp critic of the institution and Powell’s leadership. He has called the inflation spike to 9.1% in 2022 the central bank’s biggest policy mistake in four decades. A vote on his nomination probably won’t take place until next month, but he could be confirmed by the time Powell’s term as chair ends May 15.

The Senate Banking vote is the first of two key events surrounding the future of the Fed’s leadership. Also Wednesday, Powell is presiding over what will probably be his last meeting of the Fed’s interest rate-setting committee. At a news conference Wednesday afternoon, Powell may indicate whether he will remain as a member of the central bank’s board of governors after his term as chair ends.

It would be unusual for Powell to stay, but doing so would deprive the Trump administration of an opportunity to appoint a new member to the board. Powell may choose to stay if he sees it as necessary to protect the Fed’s independence, which has become part of his legacy as its leader.

Sen. Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican and chair of the committee, said Warsh is “battle tested” and added that, “It is incredibly important that we break the bind of Bidenomics on households across this nation.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, criticized the banking panel for voting on Warsh’s nomination. Doing so “will bring the president one step closer to completing his illegal attempt to seize control of the Fed and artificially juice the economy,” she said, citing Trump’s effort to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook and investigate Powell.

The Fed on Wednesday is widely expected to leave its key rate unchanged at about 3.6% for its third straight meeting, defying Trump’s calls for lower rates.

Warsh has called for “regime change” at the Fed and could alter many of its practices, including the economics models it focuses on, how it communicates with the public, and how large its bondholdings will be in the long run.

Those changes could affect financial markets, but otherwise won’t necessarily be visible to the general public. But Warsh has also advocated for additional interest rate cuts, which could potentially lower borrowing costs for mortgages, auto loans, and business loans. He will face barriers to implementing those cuts anytime soon, however, largely because the Iran war has caused a spike in gas prices, pushing inflation to a two-year high of 3.3%.

The Fed typically keeps rates elevated, or even raises them, to combat worsening inflation.

Most of the other 11 members of the Fed’s rate-setting committee have indicated they would prefer to wait and evaluate where inflation and the economy are headed before making any changes to rates. It could take time for Warsh to build up enough influence to push for rapid rate cuts. He will also replace Stephen Miran, a member of the Fed’s rate-setting committee who was appointed by Trump last September and is the most consistent advocate for rate reductions at the central bank.

Warsh also faces questions about his independence from the White House, a key issue that dogged him during a Senate Banking hearing last week. On Wednesday, Warren said, “Mr. Warsh is a Trump sock puppet who is so cowed by the president that he could not even say that Trump lost the 2020 election.”

Last December, Trump called for much lower interest rates in a social media post, and added that “anyone who does not agree with me will never be Fed chair!” And just last week he told Fox Business that he expects rates to head lower, “when Kevin gets in.”

Warsh denied at his hearing, however, that Trump had ever pressured him directly to cut rates.

Rugaber writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The State Department said that it is preparing a limited release of commemorative U.S. passports celebrating America’s 250th birthday that feature a picture of President Trump, who would be the first living president to be featured in the travel document.

The concept for the special passport, including a rendering of Trump’s stern-looking visage, had been under consideration for months before finally being approved late Monday and publicly announced Tuesday. Between 25,000 and 30,000 of the new passports will be available to applicants at the Washington passport office beginning shortly before July 4.

It’s the latest instance of Trump having his name and likeness added to buildings, documents and other highly visible tributes. There are efforts to put Trump’s signature on all new U.S. paper currency, also a first for a sitting president, as well as to include his image on a gold commemorative coin to celebrate the country’s founding.

The commemorative passport will be the default document for people applying in person at the Washington office, although those who want a standard passport will be able to get one by applying online or outside Washington, officials said.

“As the United States celebrates America’s 250th anniversary in July, the State Department is preparing to release a limited number of specially designed U.S. passports to commemorate this historic occasion,” State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said.

“These passports will feature customized artwork and enhanced imagery while maintaining the same security features that make the U.S. passport the most secure documents in the world,” he said.

The limited release passport will feature Trump’s picture over a gold imprimatur of his signature to an interior page, while the cover will feature the words “United States of America” in bold gold print at the top and “Passport” at the bottom — a reversal of the standard cover.

In addition, a small gold laminate American flag, with the number 250 encircled by stars, will be at the bottom of the back cover.

The Bulwark reported earlier on the commemorative passports.

The only presidents featured in current U.S. passports are in a double-page depiction of Mount Rushmore in South Dakota — George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.

Other depictions include the Statue of Liberty, the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall in Philadelphia, and scenes of the Great Plains, mountains and islands. Current passports also contain quotations from Martin Luther King Jr. as well as Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Dwight Eisenhower.

The addition of Trump’s picture and signature to the passport book is the newest step his aides have taken to increase the president’s visibility, including adding his name to the U.S. Institute of Peace building and the Kennedy Center performing arts venue.

Trump also has made waves with his plans for a new White House ballroom and a massive arch to be built at one of the entrances to Washington from Virginia.

Lee writes for the Associated Press.

In a 3-0 ruling, court says Trump administration misread a decades-old immigration law to justify mandatory detention.

A United States federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s practice of subjecting most people arrested in its immigration crackdown to mandatory detention without the opportunity to seek release on bond.

In a 3-0 ruling on Tuesday, a panel of the New York-based US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said the administration relied on a novel but incorrect interpretation of a decades-old immigration law to justify the policy.

Writing for the panel, US Circuit Judge Joseph F Bianco, a Trump appointee, warned that the government’s reading “would send a seismic shock through our immigration detention system and society”, straining already overcrowded facilities, separating families and disrupting communities.

Lawyers for the Trump administration say the mandatory detention policy is legal under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, passed in 1996.

But Bianco said the government had made “an attempt to muddy” the law’s “textually clear waters”, arguing that the administration’s interpretation “defies the statute’s context, structure, history, and purpose” and contradicts “longstanding executive branch practice”.

Under the Trump administration policy, the Department of Homeland Security last year took the position that non-citizens already living in the US, not just those arriving at the border, qualify as “applicants for admission” and are subject to mandatory detention.

Under federal immigration law, “applicants for admission” to the US are detained while their cases proceed in immigration courts and are ineligible for bond hearings.

The Department of Homeland Security has been denying bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country, including those who have been living in the US for years without any criminal history, the Associated Press (AP) news agency reports.

That is a departure from the practice under previous US administrations, when most non-citizens with no criminal record who were arrested away from the border were given the opportunity to request a bond while their cases moved through immigration court, according to AP.

In such cases, bonds were often granted to people who were deemed not to be flight risks, and mandatory detention was limited to those who had just entered the country.

Amy Belsher, director of immigrants rights’ litigation at the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the appeals court ruling affirmed “that the Trump administration’s policy of detaining immigrants without any process is unlawful and cannot stand”.

“The government cannot mandatorily detain millions of noncitizens, many of whom have lived here for decades, without an opportunity to seek release. It defies the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and basic human decency,” Belsher said in a statement.

Conflicting rulings set stage for Supreme Court review

The New York court’s decision comes after two other appeals courts ruled in favour of the Trump administration’s policy.

Acknowledging the opposing rulings, Judge Bianco said the panel was parting ways with them and instead aligning with more than 370 lower-court judges nationwide who have rejected the administration’s position as a misreading of the law.

The split among the courts increases the likelihood that the US Supreme Court will weigh in.

The latest ruling also upheld an order by a New York judge that led to the release of Brazilian national Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, who was arrested by immigration officials last year while driving to work after living in the US for more than 20 years.

“The court was right to conclude the Trump administration can’t just ⁠reinterpret the law at its own whim,” Michael Tan, a lawyer for Barbosa at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.

The Department of Justice, which is defending the mandatory detention policy in court, did not respond to a request for comment.

One day Delcy Rodríguez calls for a reform to the justice system after announcing the sudden revocation of the amnesty law her brother sponsored. The other, rumors suggest she’ll reshuffle the country’s higher court without providing any indication of who the new magistrates are going to be. The central bank president she recently named prepares to disclose figures to the IMF for the first time in decades.

The public does little else than follow the news, as if things were normal. Futile debate has emerged on social media over whether the new US chief of mission in Caracas is more hawkish than his predecessor. Or if the opposition has racist tendencies because a singer (once popular in the 2000s) called Delcy an ape in the opposition’s largest rally in years.

The picture of the country in recent weeks is one of Delcy Rodríguez calling the shots with near-total freedom. She has been enjoying a clear head start over a potential presidential election, as she crisscrosses Venezuela on what amounts to an unofficial campaign tour. In Caracas, she keeps changing everything so that nothing really changes. She is intent on controlling government offices in the next four years through newly promoted loyalists and a clean inflow of petrodollars. The chavista elite has looked more confident in the meantime, touring with Delcy in sky-blue outfits, leading cartoonish chants for peace and national union as if the internal contradictions that surfaced two months ago were now less important, because the possibility of survival looks clearer.

Back in February, optimists would discuss the scope of Washington’s coercion capacity over the “caretaker” regime, the boundaries that (if crossed) would trigger a “second wave” of attacks, the disappearance of Alex Saab as a prelude of a broader purge against other “untouchables” that overtly normalized the commission of terror. Now, lunatics like Diosdado Cabello’s nephew, Alejandro Rondón, claim on social media that “the recess is about to end” the same day Delcy says the amnesty scheme ran its course and Cabello recounts an unlikely justice system crackdown.

What followed January 3^rdwas a paradigm change with positive practical consequences for society that chavismo quickly learned to manage if not reverse.

Alejandro doesn’t look like the brightest dude. He’s another chavista nepo-kid working for the other Cabello uncle that controls Venezuela’s taxing authority, Jose David, though Alejandro made a name for himself with rage-baiting tweets that celebrated Maduro’s “victory” in 2024 and claimed the opposition were terrorists who falsified the official voting records (i.e. Diosdado’s talking points during the tun-tun operation).]

But an emboldened member of the Cabello Rondón clan is a troubling sign for those who fled the country after being placed on “treason” blacklists. It also undercuts the very notions of pluralism and national reconciliation that Marco Rubio invoked three months ago when outlining his vision for Venezuela’s democratic transition before US senators. Shortly thereafter, Rondón drove the point home by publicly wishing Donald Trump well after the shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. The message seems clear: the arrangement with Team Trump is comfortable enough that, however fraught the geopolitical backdrop, they can afford to be flippant—even in public. They remain, unmistakably, the bullies in town. 

The long wait for elections (or just a calendar?)

What followed January 3^rd was a paradigm change with positive practical consequences for society that chavismo quickly learned to manage if not reverse. Allies of Maria Corina  Machado who spent the past two years jailed or hiding are back in the street, even providing testimonies about their imprisonment. The student movement has undergone a revival, liaising with human rights groups to set up carefully-controlled protests. Censorship isn’t what it used to be, so journalists have tried to take advantage of that opening. Pensioners and public workers have perhaps become the loudest actor in confronting Rodríguez, despite having to face colectivos and National Guards whenever they hit the streets.

Repression has become less intense, but the lack of a clear electoral calendar keeps the opposition on the sidelines, waiting for the arrival of Machado, which is no less paralyzing. The amnesty law passed on February 19 effectively funneled the release of political prisoners, shattering expectations of a “landmark outcome” that would speed up the process. 

Indeed, the statute’s contents make more than 180 supposed military rebels ineligible, although the release of a handful of FANB officers in recent days reinforces the idea that a law wasn’t necessary to get people out of jail. Nearly 300 civilians are still imprisoned, and we haven’t seen significant breakthroughs in the past few weeks.

According to figures from NGO Foro Penal (based on documented cases), the political prisoner population fell by 40% in the two months following the US military intervention—dropping from 863 detainees in late December to 526 by March 2. The pace has clearly slowed since then. Chavismo released 36 people between March and April, and 17 over the past 18 days (about 6% of the pre–January 3 total). The regime still resorts to sporadic arbitrary arrests and intimidation. Alexis Paparoni, an opposition figure in Mérida (and brother of Carlos Paparoni), was briefly detained while traveling and later released under precautionary measures. A similar incident occurred last weekend with a government employee in Guárico, who was detained for having a note on his desk bearing the now-infamous slur directed at Delcy.

“These prisoners are currently incarcerated because POTUShas chosen to appease and praise the perpetrators instead of supporting their victims,” Burelli recently told Senator Scott.

The White House appears satisfied with results so far. Venezuela is now subject to sweeping sanctions relief across oil, gas, minerals, and fertilizers, while OFAC has issued waivers allowing operations with public banks. Most notably, Delcy Rodríguez has been removed from the Specially Designated Nationals list—effectively unfreezing her US-based assets and clearing the way for financial dealings under American jurisdiction. 

The opposition leadership has largely stuck to its 2025 strategy of projecting trust and patience toward Donald Trump. María Corina Machado continues to argue that Trump is the head of state who has done the most to advance Venezuela’s liberation and maintains that the Rodríguez government is dismantling the Maduro-era “structures of corruption and repression.” However, she acknowledged last week that a bout of political instability cannot be ruled out. 

“The risk is that if people feel the path [toward freedom and democracy] is beginning to close, they may start to push back in a disorganized and potentially anarchic way,” she told esRadio hosts in Madrid. “That’s why a clearly defined electoral calendar is a guarantee of peace and stability. That would help people accept that this process will last a bit longer, as institutions must be strengthened and we need to take time to prepare for a truly impeccable election.”

Running out of patience

Criticism of the Trump administration’s handling in Venezuela continues to grow among groups of scholars and foreign policy observers, while opposition parties remain largely quiet and prefer to let Machado formulate their stance.

But in general, there’s a tense awareness that the waters are getting muddy. Some in journalism, and other opposition allies are starting to lose their patience.

Venezuelan journalist Sebastiana Barraez, an outspoken critic of chavismo and popular source on repression, told her audience that Venezuelan people have no guarantees about their future. Two days ago, she admitted the overthrow of Nicolás Maduro had raised hopes of a new democracy and true institutional recovery.

“It turns out none of that is happening,” Barráez said. “In Venezuela, Trump is promoting the interests of the United States. The problem is that those interests are not compatible with what we Venezuelans are looking for.”

Pedro Mario Burelli, an independent advisor for the opposition, is among the few figures to be pressing Washington over its ties with Delcy Rodríguez, calling Trump’s decision to elevate her an “incoherent strategy.” He has warned that doing business with Minerven makes the US an effective enabler of environmental crimes in Venezuela’s south. In March, he told The Atlantic that the remaining political prisoners now belong to Trump and Rubio.

“These prisoners are currently incarcerated because POTUS has chosen to appease and praise the perpetrators instead of supporting their victims. Constantly praising Delcy is disgraceful and an insult to the vast majority of Venezuelans”, Burelli told GOP Senator Rick Scott on Sunday.“Faulting her, as you and some of your colleagues do, is disingenuous. Venezuelans rightfully expect, and deserve, much more from democratically elected US officials.”

‘The great puzzle’

While Massie has long dominated elections in Kentucky’s 4th district, polling this year shows a tighter race than expected.

A Quantus Insights survey conducted from April 6 to 7 showed Massie leading Gallrein 46.8 percent to 37.7 percent.

Another survey conducted by Big Data Poll in early April had Massie ahead with 52.4 percent to Gallrein’s 47.6 percent.

The relatively close primary could be a bellwether for Republican voting trends nationwide, according to Stephen Voss, a political science professor at the University of Kentucky.

“Massie is an early opportunity to see what Republican voters will do when their pro-Trump leanings clash with their conservative leanings,” Voss said. “That is the great puzzle of this race.”

This is not the first time Trump has turned against Massie, though. In 2020, another election year, Trump famously petitioned to “throw Massie out of the Republican Party”.

But by 2022, Trump had reversed course, endorsing Massie over a challenger who questioned the congressman’s commitment to the president.

Still, the past year has widened the rift between Trump and Massie, leading the president to make his most aggressive moves yet to unseat the congressman.

The two Republicans clashed on a range of issues in 2025. Massie, for example, opposed the president on his tax and spending measures, fearing increases to the national debt.

That meant voting against Trump’s signature piece of legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, last July.

The Kentucky Republican also denounced Trump’s campaign of foreign intervention. Last June, NBC News reported that it was after Massie criticised Trump’s strikes on Iran that the president’s allies began laying the groundwork for a primary challenge.

Massie also led the charge to compel the Department of Justice to release all the files related to the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier and convicted child sex offender.

Shortly thereafter, Trump gave his stamp of approval to Gallrein, posting on his Truth Social site, “RUN, ED, RUN.”

By that point, Gallrein, a military veteran and fifth-generation farmer, had yet to enter the race. Four days later, on October 21, he launched his bid.

Critics argue Gallrein’s platform does not offer much of a distinction from Massie’s. His campaign website lists his priorities as cutting taxes, reducing government spending, protecting gun rights and opposing abortion — issues Massie also supports.

“I don’t think he’s offering any kind of alternative, except for being the selection of Donald Trump,” Kahne said. “I think that’s it. That’s the only thing he has to offer.”

But Gallrein has drawn heavily from Trump’s endorsement, using it as a badge of loyalty and authenticity.

“You deserve an authentic, true Republican conservative that stands shoulder to shoulder with our president and the Republican Party,” Gallrein declared at the Trump rally in March.

Trump, meanwhile, told the crowd he had grown so frustrated that he just wanted “somebody with a warm body to beat Massie”.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will hear arguments this week over whether the Trump administration may revoke temporary protected status for about 350,000 Haitian and 6,100 Syrian immigrants.

TPS allows people who are already in the United States to legally reside and work here if they are unable to safely return to their home country because of a sudden emergency such as war or a natural disaster. The humanitarian program, enacted by Congress in 1990, has since been used by Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

Since President Trump returned to office last year, his administration has terminated such protections for immigrants from 13 countries. Court challenges on behalf of Haitians and Syrians have been consolidated into a single case, Mullin vs. Doe, which the justices will hear Wednesday.

The high court’s ruling could eventually have sweeping repercussions for all 1.3 million immigrants from the 17 countries that were designated for TPS at the start of this administration. That’s because the federal government is arguing that decisions regarding the program are almost entirely immune from review by courts.

“Temporary means temporary and the final word will not be from activist judges legislating from the bench,” a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, who did not provide their name, wrote in response to a request for comment.

Lower courts have repeatedly deemed the administration’s actions improper.

“We’re seeing clear gamesmanship from government to insulate all TPS decision-making from any oversight,” said Emi MacLean, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, who is counsel in the case for Syrians and in other cases challenging five of the terminations. “They’ve created a farce of a process to justify the ends that they sought, which was to strip humanitarian protections from over a million people.”

In the Trump administration’s appeal, Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued that Congress gave the Homeland Security secretary the power to grant or end the temporary protected status for troubled countries and barred judges from intervening.

He pointed to a provision that says: “There is no judicial review of any determination of the [secretary] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state.”

Citing this hands-off provision, Trump’s lawyers won brief emergency orders last year that allowed the administration to strip legal protections from about 600,000 Venezuelans. In that case, then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had quickly reversed an extension granted by the Biden administration three days before Trump was sworn in.

The circumstances surrounding the Syria and Haiti cases are different. Advocates for the immigrants argue that the administration failed to conduct the required process to properly evaluate each country’s conditions.

They point to emails in July from a Homeland Security official to a State Department official. The Homeland Security official listed TPS designations coming up for review — Syria, South Sudan, Myanmar and Ethiopia. In response, the State Department official wrote: “I confirm that State has no foreign policy concerns with ending these TPS designations.”

State Department travel advisories for both countries warn people against traveling to either because of the risk of terrorism, kidnapping and widespread violence. U.S. citizens are advised to prepare a will.

For Syria, the advisory cites active armed conflict since 2011. For Haiti, it says the country has been under a national state of emergency since March 2024.

But Federal Register notices announcing the terminations said country conditions had sufficiently improved. The notice for Syria, for example, says “the Secretary has determined that, while some sporadic and episodic violence occurs in Syria, the situation no longer meets the criteria for an ongoing armed conflict that poses a serious threat to the personal safety of returning Syrian nationals.”

If the government loses, Homeland Security officials would have to reevaluate the TPS decisions in consultation with the State Department and make a decision based entirely on the country conditions themselves.

The government could start over, in that case, and still find that TPS is no longer warranted — if the process bears that out.

In a friend-of-the-court brief led by immigration law scholars at Georgetown and Temple universities, they explained that before TPS existed, similar forms of humanitarian relief were determined by the executive branch “without reference to any statutory criteria or constraints, and with little if any explanation for why nationals of certain countries received protection while others did not.”

With TPS in 1990, Congress sought to end that “unfettered discretion,” they wrote. Instead, the statute requires the Homeland Security secretary to terminate TPS if the review finds that conditions justifying the designation no longer exist. Otherwise, the law states, it “is extended.”

“The point of the TPS statute was to depoliticize humanitarian decisions,” said MacLean, the ACLU attorney. “Secretary Noem in all of her TPS decisions has completely undermined that fundamental goal.”

Ahilan Arulanantham, who is arguing for the Syria case on Wednesday, added that if the government wins, “it also means they could probably grant TPS to countries that don’t deserve it.” Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA, has represented the National TPS Alliance in separate litigation during this administration and Trump’s first.

Top Homeland Security and State Department officials from the George W. Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden administrations filed a brief arguing that the Trump administration’s terminations of TPS for Syria and Haiti were “not based on evidence and sharply departed from past inter-agency practices.”

Haiti was originally designated for TPS in 2010 after a massive earthquake devastated the country and redesignated because of subsequent natural disasters and gang violence. In November, Noem announced that she would terminate TPS for Haiti, effective Feb. 3. She wrote in the Federal Register that “there are no extraordinary and temporary conditions in Haiti” that prevent Haitians from safely returning.

But even if there were, she continued, “termination of Temporary Protected Status of Haiti is still required because it is contrary to the national interest of the United States.”

The Homeland Security spokesperson said TPS for Haiti “was never intended to be a de facto amnesty program, yet that’s how previous administrations have used it for decades.”

Syria, meanwhile, “has been a hotbed of terrorism and extremism for nearly two decades,” the spokesperson wrote, “and it is contrary to our national interest to allow Syrians to remain in our country.”

In the Federal Register notice for Syria, Noem added that maintaining its TPS designation would “complicate the administration’s broader diplomatic engagement with Syria’s transitional government” by undermining peace-building efforts.

The Supreme Court will take up the question of whether the Homeland Security secretary can use national interest as a reason to revoke TPS. Attorneys for the TPS holders believe any decision to revoke TPS must come down to the country conditions alone.

Syria and Haiti are among the countries for which the Trump administration has also paused processing all immigration benefits. If their TPS protections expire, those immigrants would become vulnerable to detention and deportation even if they are eligible for other forms of relief.

U.S. Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued that Congress gave the Homeland Security secretary the power to grant or end the temporary protected status for troubled countries and barred judges from intervening.

(Aaron Schwartz / Getty Images)

Attorneys for the TPS holders say the terminations were also driven by racial animus. They point to various statements by Trump over the years, including his false claim that Haitians were eating the pets of people in Springfield, Ohio, that they “probably have AIDS” and that Haiti is among the “shithole countries” from which he would permanently pause migration.

Among those affected is a 35-year-old Haitian woman who has lived in the U.S. since 2000 and is raising her four U.S. citizen children in a Southern state. The woman requested to be identified by her middle and last initials, B.B., out of concern for her immigration case.

After graduating high school, B.B. got into nursing school but couldn’t attend because she didn’t qualify for financial aid. She said later getting TPS allowed her to become a certified nursing assistant, and she now works as a medical coordinator while owning a nail salon and three real estate properties.

Though B.B.’s TPS remains active because of the court proceedings, her driver’s license expired Feb. 3 and she has since had to rely on friends and rideshares to get around while repeatedly requesting a renewal.

She said she worries most about her children. If she were deported back to Haiti, she said, she would leave them in the U.S. for their own safety.

“It’s like planning your death,” she said. “I’m 35 and I already have a will — not because I’m going to die but because of the situation.”

On a call with reporters, attorneys and advocates, a Syrian man said he earned his master’s degree in the U.S. and now works in the healthcare industry. The man, who was identified by a pseudonym, said he and his wife are afraid of what their future will look like.

“TPS gave us something we had not had in years: a place to settle and a moment to grieve,” he said, later adding that “telling Syrians to go back right now is not a policy — it’s abandonment.”

Among the public, there is broad support for TPS and other humanitarian programs. According to a poll conducted last month by the firm Equis Research, 68% of Latino and 65% of non-Latino voters support fighting to give back legal protection to those who have lost their temporary protected status or asylum protections as a result of the current administration’s actions.

Earlier this month, the House voted in favor of a bill that would require new Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to redesignate Haiti for TPS. Among those who crossed the political aisle to support it were 10 Republicans and Rep. Kevin Kiley, an independent from Rocklin, Calif., who caucuses with Republicans. The measure faces an uphill battle in the Senate.

In an interview with The Times, Kiley said his vote was about common sense and being humane.

“It’s particularly dangerous for people that would be returning where the gangs that are ravaging the country are just lying in wait outside the airport in Port-au-Prince,” he said, referring to the Haitian capital.

And because most won’t return willingly, Kiley added, “really all you’d be doing is removing work authorization from 350,000-some people who are going to mostly remain in the country, who will not be able to work anymore and may end up being more reliant on public assistance in states where they’re eligible.”

At the same time, Kiley said, the TPS system hasn’t worked as intended because most so-called temporary designations drag on.

“The system needs to be reformed,” he said. “But that’s all separate and apart from what we do with the folks who were already given this designation.”

Times staff writer David G. Savage in Washington contributed to this report.

The Trump administration’s historic move to reclassify state-licensed medical marijuana as a less-dangerous drug was cheered by some advocates but for others, it fell far short for the thousands still incarcerated on federal cannabis-related convictions.

The executive order, which acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche signed Thursday, does not address current penalties for possessing and selling marijuana or those jailed with yearslong sentences.

“While this is a victory, the fight is far from over,” said Jason Ortiz, director of strategic initiatives for the Last Prisoner Project, a nonprofit focused on cannabis criminal justice reform.

Proponents of legalizing marijuana as well as overhauling prison sentencing say this order, which does not completely decriminalize the drug, benefits only cannabis researchers, growers and others in Big Weed. Meanwhile, thousands — many of whom are people of color — are stuck serving harsh sentences for marijuana-related offenses. Or they have served their time but having a conviction on their record has made life difficult.

Now, advocates are calling on Congress and state lawmakers to take concrete steps to ensure those with marijuana-related convictions receive fair treatment or be forgiven altogether.

Prisoners and their families look for hope

Blanche’s order reclassifies state-licensed medical marijuana as a less-dangerous drug. The major policy shift, which both Presidents Obama and Joe Biden had considered, means cannabis won’t be grouped with drugs like heroin.

But it does not legalize marijuana for medical or recreational use. It shifts licensed medical marijuana from Schedule I — reserved for drugs without medical use and with high potential for abuse — to the less strictly regulated Schedule III. This will likely give licensed medical marijuana operators and cannabis researchers a major tax break and less stringent barriers to doing normal business.

Virtually no one imprisoned at the federal level is there solely for marijuana possession. But many are there for large-scale possession, trafficking offenses or both.

Hector Ruben McGurk, 66, has been serving life without the possibility of parole since 2007 for transporting thousands of pounds of marijuana and money laundering. He is currently imprisoned in Beaumont, Texas, over 800 miles from his son’s El Paso home. His incarceration has been hard on his son, said McGurk’s daughter-in-law, Ferna Anguiano. And the distance makes visits logistically difficult.

So it’s tempting to see this order as a glimmer of hope, given that the family believes McGurk’s punishment far outweighs his crimes. But Anguiano has no idea how to navigate lobbying for his release.

“His release date is death,” Anguiano said. “I mean, we see all this stuff on the news — bigger cases, fatal cases — and people are going in and out of prison and coming out to their families.”

They try to keep in touch through phone calls and a prison texting service. They’re concerned about McGurk’s health and his diabetes management. It would be a dream come true for him to come home.

“He deserves a second chance,” Anguiano said. “Yes, it was a poor decision he did in his lifetime. He was younger. But he is not a bad person. I think it’s fair to say he has served enough time for it.”

It’s not clear whether punishments would be different had marijuana always been scheduled differently, drug policy experts say.

“In addition to schedule-specific penalties, there are marijuana-specific penalties that have nothing to do with the schedule,” said Cat Packer, director of drug markets and legal regulation at the nonprofit Drug Policy Alliance. “Even if marijuana were to be moved to Schedule V, those criminal penalties would still exist and there are mandatory minimums for simple possession.”

Racial disparities exist in convictions and Big Weed

Destigmatizing marijuana has long been an issue for both political parties. Obama commuted the sentences of about 1,900 federal prisoners, almost all of whom were incarcerated for nonviolent drug crimes. Biden pardoned 6,500 people convicted of use and simple possession of marijuana on federal lands and in the District of Columbia. President Trump’s administration has taken far fewer drug clemency actions and does not have an overarching policy directing such actions.

“What many people on the right and the left would like is to move marijuana from this ‘just as bad as heroin’ category and to just sort of de-schedule it entirely,” said Marta Nelson, director of sentencing reform at the Vera Institute of Justice. “Regulate it like you do alcohol or tobacco.”

Studies show Black Americans are roughly 3.7 to 4 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than white Americans, despite usage rates being roughly the same across racial groups. Federal-level marijuana cases are pretty small today, but those serving sentences for federal drug offenses are overwhelmingly Hispanic and Black, according to Justice Department and Bureau of Justice Statistics data.

The racial disparity with drug convictions is reminiscent of 2010 legislation Obama signed reducing the gap between mandatory sentences for crack cocaine versus powder cocaine. In 2018, Trump made it apply retroactively.

Because business owners with state medical marijuana licenses are predominantly white, the tax relief created by the rescheduling will also likely give a leg up to mostly white businesses, Packer said. A lot of equity programs won’t apply.

“This is going to, in my mind, widen the gap, the financial disparities, the business disparities that currently exist between Black and brown, Latino and white owners in the cannabis industry because licenses were not distributed equitably,” Packer said.

Possible next steps for marijuana convictions

In theory, Trump could issue a blanket pardon like he did for Jan. 6 rioters. But Nelson thinks that is highly doubtful.

“Having marijuana convictions on the record for things like mass immigration enforcement is helpful to the administration,” Nelson said.

An impactful next step would be for Congress to outline very comprehensive legislation addressing existing marijuana-related convictions, expungements and industry regulations, she added.

The Last Prisoner Project and other organizations are planning to renew a dialogue with federal lawmakers, including the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, which includes Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Republican Rep. David Joyce of Ohio. They will also continue to lobby for Trump to conduct a large-scale act of commutation and clemency.

Advocates are also hoping Trump’s order will prompt every state to rethink their marijuana classification and penalties.

“It is imperative that every state review their situation, as a lot of their controlled substances at the state level are tied to the federal government,” Ortiz said. “We’re gonna see other states that are going to need a little help from the public to remind them what the right thing to do is.”

Tang writes for the Associated Press.