Trump

The Trump administration blocked Harvard University’s ability to enrol international students on Thursday. The move marks a sharp escalation in tensions between the White House and the Ivy League university.

May 22 (UPI) — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday in favor of President Donald Trump‘s firing of two Democratic board members of independent oversight agencies as litigation over their removal continues.

The conservative-leaning high court ruled 6-3 in support of the government’s request for an emergency order staying several lower-court rulings that had ordered the reinstatement of Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris to the Merit Systems Protection Board.

All three liberal justices dissented.

Wilcox was removed from the labor board by President Donald Trump on Jan. 27, with no cause given. Harris was fired by the president on Feb. 10, also without reason.

Both sued the government in response. District courts ruled that they were unlawfully dismissed by the president, arguing Trump exceeded his power in doing so. The courts pointed to a 1935 Supreme Court decision, Humphrey’s Executor, that permits Congress to limit the president’s ability to fire officials from independent agencies.

Both Wilcox and Harris were appointed by President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate. Wilcox has three years remaining in her term, and Harris has four. The boards were also created by Congress as bipartisan and independent.

They were removed as Trump fired thousands of government workers, including heads of independent agencies, in a federal government overhaul to consolidate power under the executive branch.

In the majority ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court cited the Constitution, which vests executive powers in the president, including the authority to remove officers without cause who “exercise considerable executive power.”

The justices did not rule on the merits of the case, explaining that their stay is does not determine whether either the NLRB or MSPB exercise executive power, and that question is better left to ongoing litigation in the case.

The ruling added that the government faces “greater risk of harm” by allowing the fired board members to resume their positions and exercise executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being denied reinstatement.

“A stay is appropriate to avoid the disruptive effect of the repeated removal and reinstatement of officers during the pendency of this litigation,” the majority wrote.

The Supreme Court also cooled concerns raised by Wilcox and Harris in the case about implications their removals might have on removal protections for other independent agencies, specifically the Federal Reserve Board of Governors or the Federal Open Market Committee.

“The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States,” the majority said.

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, writing on behalf of the other two liberal justices, accused the president of effectively disregarding Humphrey’s, saying he either wants it overruled or confined and is acting on that belief by taking the law into his own hands.

“Not since the 1950s (or even before) has a President, without a legitimate reason, tried to remove an officer from a classic independent agency — a multi-member, bipartisan commission exercising regulatory power whose government statute contains a for-cause provision,” she wrote.

“Yet now the President has discharged, concededly without cause such officers, including a member of the NLRB (Gwynne Wilcox) and a member of the MSPB (Cathy Harris). Today, this court effectively blesses those deeds. I would not.”

She continued by stating that the decision in this case was an easy one to make, and was made correctly by the lower courts.

Trump, she said, has no legal right to relief, and Congress, by statute, has protected members of the NLRB and MSPB from removal by the president except for good cause.

To fire Wilcox and Harris without good cause is to upend Humphrey’s, she argued.

“For that reason, the majority’s order granting the President’s request for a stay is nothing short of extraordinary,” she said.

“And so the order allows the President to overrule Humphrey’s by fiat.”

May 22 (UPI) — The Trump administration has stopped Harvard from accepting international students after the Ivy League institution lost its ability to use the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, the Trump administration announced Thursday.

The SEVP allows non-citizens to enroll using a specific visa.

“As a result of your refusal to comply with multiple requests to provide the Department of Homeland Security pertinent information while perpetuating an unsafe campus environment that is hostile to Jewish students, promotes pro-Hamas sympathies, and employs racist ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ policies, you have lost this privilege,” Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a letter to school.

The letter went on to say that, as a result of the revocation, Harvard would be prohibited from having international students using specific types of nonimmigrant visas on campus for the 2025-2026 academic year, and said the students would have to transfer to another university to maintain their nonimmigrant status.

In a separate post on social media, Noem said Harvard had “plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused.”

In April, Noem wrote to Harvard asking university officials to provide the DHS with information about visa holders’ known illegal or violent activity, threats to fellow students or faculty, whether they had been involved in protests or disrupted students’ learning environment, and listing the coursework students were taking to maintain their visa status.

Noem has also said that the administration revoked two grants totaling $2.7 million, citing inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars.

The administration’s move is the latest step in a months-long fight with Harvard over international students during which the Trump administration threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax exempt status.

Harvard pushed back on Noem’s Thursday letter, calling the Trump administration’s move “unlawful,” and said it will likely file a second legal challenge.

“We are fully committed to maintaining Harvard’s ability to host our international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the University — and this nation — immeasurably,” in a statement, the BBC reported.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld, for now, President Trump’s decision to fire two agency officials who had fixed terms that were set by Congress.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices set aside rulings that would have reinstated Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Both were appointees of President Biden.

The decision is the latest in which the court’s conservative majority sided with the president’s power to fire agency officials in violation of long-standing laws.

“Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf,” the court said in an unsigned order.

But the justices were quick to add the Federal Reserve Board is not affected by this decision.

“The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States,” the court said.

President Trump has threatened to fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell, whose term extends to next year.

At issue is a fundamental dispute over whether the Constitution gave the president or Congress the power to set the structure of the federal government.

In 1935, the court ruled unanimously that Congress can create independent and “nonpartisan” boards and commissions whose members are appointed by the president for a fixed term. The court then drew a distinction between “purely executive officers” who were under the president’s control and members of boards whose duties were more judicial or legislative.

But in recent years, conservatives have questioned that precedent and argued that the president has the executive power to hire and fire all officials of the government.

Shortly after taking office, Trump fired Wilcox and Harris even though their terms had not expired. They sued contending the firings were illegal and violated the law.

They won before a federal judge and the U.S. court of appeals.

Those judges cited the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision that upheld Congress’ authority to create independent boards whose members are appointed by the president to serve a fixed-term.

Trump’s lawyers say the Constitution gives the president full executive power, including control of agencies. And that in turns gives him the authority to fire officials who were appointed to a fixed term by another president, they said in Trump vs. Wilcox.

Justice Elena Kagan filed an eight-page dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“Today’s order favors the President over our precedent; and it does so unrestrained by the rules of briefing and argument—and the passage of time— needed to discipline our decision-making,” Kagan wrote. “I would deny the President’s application. I would do so based on the will of Congress, this Court’s seminal decision approving independent agencies’ for-cause protections, and the ensuing 90 years of this Nation’s history.”

The court said its decision was not final.

The NLRB was created by Congress in 1935 as a semi-independent agency tasked with enforcing the labor laws. Its general counsel serves as a prosecutor while the board‘s five members act as judges who review administrative decisions arising from unfair-labor claims brought by unions.

Under the law, the president appoints the general counsel who can be fired but board members have five-year terms. They may be fired for “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office,” but not simply because of political disagreements.

Trump could have controlled the board by appointing members to fill two vacancies. He chose instead to fire Wilcox, leaving the board without a quorum of three members.

Wilcox argued there was no reason to rush to change the law.

“Over the past two centuries, Congress has embedded modest for-cause removal restrictions in the structure of numerous multi-member agencies,” she said in response to the administration’s appeal. She noted that all past presidents — Republicans and Democrats — did not challenge those limits.

The Merit System Protections Board was created by Congress in 1978 as a part of a civil service reform law. Its three board members have seven-year terms, and they review complaints from federal civil servants who allege they were fired for partisan or other inappropriate reasons.

Trump’s decision to fire Harris also left the board without a quorum.

The administration of President Donald Trump has taken a hard line against top US universities over their responses to pro-Palestine protests, as well as their diversity initiatives and curricula.

The move on Thursday to block Harvard University from enrolling foreign students represents the latest escalation in a months-long standoff, which critics say has been rooted in unfounded claims of rampant anti-Semitism.

In a statement, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the administration was “holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus”.

Harvard has called the latest move “unlawful” and a “retaliatory action”.

Here’s how we got here:

December 2023: The standoff stretches back to the months following the October 7, 2023 attack on southern Israel, and the resulting Israeli offensive on Gaza, in which at least 53,655 Palestinians have since been killed.

Then-Harvard President Claudine Gay’s testimony before Congress on the administration’s response to pro-Palestine protests sparks outrage, as elected officials, particularly Republicans, call for greater crackdowns.

Gay subsequently resigns from her post and is replaced by Alan Garber in August 2024.

January 2025: Trump takes office in January 2025, following a campaign where he vowed to crack down on pro-Palestine protests, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes, and “woke ideology” on college campuses.

Trump also signs a series of executive orders calling for government agencies to take actions against DEI programmes at private institutions, including universities, and to increase government actions to combat anti-Semitism, particularly on campuses.

February 2025: The US Department of Justice (DOJ) launches a task force to “root out anti-Semitic harassment in schools and on college campuses”.

The task force later announces it will visit 10 schools, saying it was “aware of allegations that the schools may have failed to protect Jewish students and faculty members from unlawful discrimination, in potential violation of federal law”.

The schools include Harvard, as well as Columbia University, George Washington University, Johns Hopkins University, New York University, Northwestern University, the University of California, Los Angeles, the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Minnesota, and the University of Southern California.

March 7, 2025: The Trump administration takes its first action against a US university, slashing $400m in federal funding to Columbia University and accusing the school of “continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students”.

A subsequent letter from the Department of Education warns Harvard and dozens of other universities of “potential enforcement actions”.

March 21, 2025: Columbia yields to Trump’s demands, which include banning face masks, empowering campus police with arresting authority, and installing a new administrator to oversee the department of Middle East, South Asian and African Studies and the Center for Palestine Studies.

March 31, 2025: The US Departments of Education (ED), Health and Human Services (HHS), and the US General Services Administration (GSA) announce an official review of $255.6m in Harvard contracts and $8.7bn in multi-year grants.

The review is part of the “ongoing efforts of the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism”, the statement said.

April 11, 2025: Harvard is sent a letter saying the university has “failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment” and listing several Trump administration demands.

The demands include a governance overhaul that lessens the power of students and some staff, reforming hiring and admissions practices, refusing to admit students deemed “hostile to the American values and institutions”, doing away with diversity programmes, and auditing several academic programmes and centres, including several related to the Middle East.

April 14, 2025: Harvard President Garber issues a forceful rejection of the demands, writing: “The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights”.

The US administration announces an immediate freeze on funding, including $2.2bn in multi-year grants and $60m in multi-year contracts.

April 15, 2025: In a Truth Social post, Trump floats that Harvard could lose “Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity”. He accuses Harvard of “pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness’”.

April 16, 2025: The Department of Homeland Security calls on Harvard to turn over records on any foreign students’ “illegal and violent activities”, while threatening to revoke the university’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program approval. The certification is required for it to enrol foreign students. Noem gives an April 30 deadline for this.

April 21, 2025: Harvard files a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing it of violating the First Amendment of the US Constitution with “arbitrary and capricious” funding cuts.

April 30, 2025: Harvard says it shared information requested by Noem regarding foreign students, but does not release the nature of the information provided.

May 2, 2025: Trump again says the administration will take away Harvard’s tax-exempt status. No action is immediately taken.

May 5, 2025: The Trump administration says it is cutting all new federal grants to Harvard.

May 13, 2025: The US Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announces another $450m in federal funding from eight federal agencies.

May 19, 2025: The DOJ announces it will use the False Claims Act, typically used to punish federal funding recipients accused of corruption, to crack down on universities like Harvard over DEI policies. The Department of Health and Human Services also says it is terminating $60m in federal grants to Harvard.

May 22, 2025: Noem announces revocation of Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program, blocking it from enrolling new foreign students and saying current students will need to transfer to continue their studies.

Harvard responds: “We are fully committed to maintaining Harvard’s ability to host our international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the university – and this nation – immeasurably.”

US President Donald Trump announces his latest defence plan: The Golden Dome.

Estimated at a cost of $175bn, it is designed to shoot down advanced missiles headed towards the United States.

Using both ground and space to detect incoming projectiles, it will far surpass a similar system used in Israel known as the Iron Dome.

But critics say it could prove ineffective and upset the balance of world power.

So, might the scheme lead to the militarisation of space and threaten the global order?

And could there be other motives behind Trump’s announcement?

Presenter:

Elizabeth Puranam

Guests:

Michael O’Hanlon, Senior fellow and director of research in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution

Youngshik Bong, Research fellow at the Yonsei University Institute for North Korean Studies

Marina Miron, Post-doctoral researcher at the war studies department at King’s College London

McALLEN, Texas — The Trump administration is seeking to end an immigration policy cornerstone that since the 1990s has offered protections to child migrants in federal custody, a move that will be challenged by advocates, according to a court filing Thursday.

The protections in place, known as the Flores Settlement, largely limit to 72 hours the amount of time that child migrants traveling alone or with family are detained by the U.S. Border Patrol. They also ensure the children are kept in safe and sanitary conditions.

President Trump tried to end the protections during his first term and his allies have long railed against it. The court filing, submitted jointly by the administration and advocates, says the government plans to detail its arguments later Thursday and propose a hearing on July 18 before U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee.

The settlement is named for a Salvadoran girl, Jenny Flores, whose lawsuit alleging widespread mistreatment of children in custody in the 1980s prompted special oversight.

In August 2019, the first Trump administration asked a judge to dissolve the agreement. Its motion eventually was struck down in December 2020 by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Under the Biden administration, oversight protections for child migrants were lifted for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services after new guidelines were put in place last year.

The Department of Homeland Security is still beholden to the agreement, including Customs and Border Protection, which detains and processes children after their arrival in the U.S. with or without their parents. Children then are usually released with their families or sent to a shelter operated by Health and Human Services, though processing times often go up when the number of people entering increases in a short period.

Even with the agreement in place, there have been instances where the federal government failed to provide adequate conditions for children, as in a case in Texas where nearly 300 children had to be moved from a Border Patrol facility following reports they were receiving inadequate food, water and sanitation.

Court-appointed monitors provide oversight of the agreement and report noncompliant facilities to Gee. Customs and Border Protection was set to resume its own oversight, but in January a federal judge ruled it was not ready and extended the use of court-appointed monitors for another 18 months.

Gonzalez writes for the Associated Press.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has often tried to paint himself as a close friend of United States President Donald Trump, but the relationship has rarely been as straightforward as the Israeli premier has portrayed it.

And recently, speculation across the Israeli media that the relationship between the two leaders, and by extension, their countries, has begun to unravel is becoming unavoidable.

Some idea of the gap was apparent in Trump’s recent Middle East trip, which saw him visit Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates but not Israel, the state that has typically been the US’s closest ally within the region.

Likewise, US negotiations with two of Israel’s fiercest regional opponents, Iran and the Houthi rebels in Yemen, have been taking place without any apparent input from Israel, a country that has always regarded itself as central to such matters. Lastly, against a growing chorus of international condemnation over Israel’s actions in Gaza, there was the decision of US Vice President JD Vance to cancel a planned visit to Israel for apparently “logistical” reasons.

Appearing on national television earlier this month, Israeli commentator Dana Fahn Luzon put it succinctly: “Trump is signalling to Netanyahu, ‘Honey, I’ve had enough of you.’”

“We’re seeing a total breakdown of everything that might be of benefit to Israel,” Mitchell Barak, an Israeli pollster and former political aide to several senior Israeli political figures, including Netanyahu, told Al Jazeera. “America was once our closest ally; now we don’t seem to have a seat at the table. This should be of concern to every single Israeli.”

‘Many Israelis blame Netanyahu for this,” Barak continued. “He always presented Trump as somehow being in his pocket, and it’s pretty clear Trump didn’t like that. Netanyahu crossed a line.”

‘No better friend’

While concern over a potential rift may be growing within Israel, prominent voices in the US administration are stressing the strength of their alliance.

Last Sunday, President Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, said that, while the US was keen to avert what he called a “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza, he didn’t think there was “any daylight between President Trump’s position and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s position”.

Also doubling down on the US’s commitment to Israel was White House National Security Council spokesperson James Hewitt, who dismissed reports that the Trump administration was preparing to “abandon” Israel if it continues with its war on Gaza, telling Israeli media that “Israel has had no better friend in its history than President Trump”.

The Trump administration has also been active in shutting down criticism of Israel’s war on Gaza in public spheres and specifically on US college campuses.

Several international students have also been arrested and deported for their support of Palestine, including Rumeysa Ozturk, whose arrest as she was walking on a street in a Boston suburb for an opinion piece co-authored in a student newspaper was described by Human Rights Watch as “chilling”.

Spatting

Those policies have made it clear that the Trump administration sits firmly in Israel’s corner. And looking back at Trump’s policies in his first presidential term, that is not surprising.

Trump fulfilled many of the Israeli right’s dreams in that term, between 2017 and 2021, including recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, despite its eastern half being occupied Palestinian territory, recognising the annexation of the Golan Heights, despite it being occupied Syrian territory, and pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal.

But those actions are partly to blame for the bumpy relationship between Trump and Netanyahu, with the US president reportedly resentful of what he saw as a lack of gratitude for those pro-Israel policies.

Trump was also furious after Netanyahu congratulated former US President Joe Biden following his 2020 election victory over Trump, which the current president still disputes.

“The first person that congratulated [Biden] was Bibi [Benjamin] Netanyahu, the man that I did more for than any other person I dealt with. … Bibi could have stayed quiet. He has made a terrible mistake,” Trump said in an interview in 2021.

Nevertheless, in the build-up to the 2024 US election, Netanyahu and his allies actively courted candidate Trump, believing him to be the best means of fulfilling their agenda and continuing their war on Gaza, analysts said.

“Netanyahu had really campaigned for Trump before the election, emphasising how bad Biden was,” Yossi Mekelberg, an Associate Fellow at Chatham House, said.

“Now they don’t know which way Trump’s going to go because he’s so contractual. He’s all about the win,” Mekelberg added, referring to the series of victories the president claimed during his recent Gulf tour, adding, “but there’s no win in Palestine”.

Across the Israeli press and media, a consensus is taking hold that Trump has simply tired of trying to secure a “win” or an end to the war on Gaza that Netanyahu and his allies on the Israeli hard right have no interest in pursuing.

Israeli Army Radio has even carried reports that Trump has blocked direct contact from Netanyahu over concerns that the Israeli prime minister may be trying to manipulate him.

Quoting an unnamed Israeli official, Yanir Cozin, a reporter with Israeli Army Radio, wrote on X: “There’s nothing Trump hates more than being portrayed as a sucker and someone being played, so he decided to cut off contact.”

“There’s a sense in Israel that Trump’s turned on Netanyahu,” political analyst Nimrod Flaschenberg said from Tel Aviv. “Supporters of Netanyahu are panicking, as they all previously thought that Trump’s backing was unlimited.”

What now?

A break in relations between Netanyahu and Trump might not mean an automatic break between Israel and the US, Flaschenberg cautioned, with all factions across the Israeli political spectrum speculating on what the future may hold under a realigned relationship with the US.

US financial, military and diplomatic support for Israel has been a bedrock of both countries’ foreign policy for decades, Mekelberg said. Moreover, whatever Trump’s current misgivings about his relationship with Netanyahu, support for Israel, while diminishing, remains hardwired into much of his Republican base, analysts and polls have noted, and particularly among Republican – and Democratic – donors.

“Those opposed to Netanyahu and the war are hoping that the US may now apply a lasting ceasefire,” Flaschenberg said, with reference to Israeli reliance upon US patronage. “That’s not because of any great faith in Trump, but more the extent of their dismay in the current government.”

However, equally present are those on the hard right, such as Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who Mekelberg speculated may also hope to take advantage of whatever direction US policy towards Israel heads in.

“Ben-Gvir, Smotrich and their backers could take advantage of American disinterest, depending upon what shape it takes,” Mekelberg told Al Jazeera. “If the US continues to provide weapons and diplomatic cover in the UN while letting [Israel] get on with it, then that’s their dream,” he said of Smotrich, who has reassured his backers that allowing minimal aid into the besieged enclave did not mean that Israel would stop “destroying everything that’s left of the Gaza Strip”.

However, where Netanyahu may figure in this is uncertain.

Accusations that the Israeli prime minister has become reliant upon the war to sustain the political coalition he needs to remain in office and avoid both a legal reckoning in his corruption trial, as well as a political reckoning over his government’s failures ahead of the October 7, 2023 attack, are both widespread and longstanding.

“I don’t know if Netanyahu can come back from this,” Barak said, still uncertain about whether the prime minister can demonstrate his survival skills once again. “There’s a lot of talk about Netanyahu being at the end of his line. I don’t know. They’ve been saying that for years, and he’s still here. They were saying that when I was his aide, but I can’t see any more magic tricks that are available to him.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem says move is response to university’s refusal to comply with Trump demands.

US President Donald Trump’s administration has blocked Harvard University’s ability to enrol international students, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

In a post on X on Thursday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the Trump administration was “holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus”.

“It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enrol foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments,” she said. “Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused.”

In a letter to the university’s administration, Noem said the university’s Student Exchange Visitor Program certification has been revoked. The programme is overseen by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, which falls under the agency Noem leads.

The move means that not only will Harvard not be able to accept foreign students on its campus, but current students will need to “transfer to another university in order to maintain their non-immigrant status”, the letter said.

Harvard did not immediately respond to the move, which was first reported by the New York Times.

The action represents an escalation amid a wider standoff between the university, which has refused to agree to a list of demands related to its diversity programmes and response to pro-Palestine protests, and the Trump administration.

The administration has responded with three rounds of federal funding and grants cuts. Harvard is currently pursuing a lawsuit accusing the administration of defying the US constitution in its actions.

More to come…

MIAMI — Juan Serrano, a 28-year-old Colombian migrant with no criminal record, attended a hearing in immigration court in Miami on Wednesday for what he thought would be a quick check-in.

The musty, glass-paneled courthouse sees hundreds of such hearings every day. Most last less than five minutes and end with a judge ordering those who appear to return in two years’ time to plead their case against deportation.

So it came as a surprise when, rather than set a future court date, government attorneys asked to drop the case. “You’re free to go,” Judge Monica Neumann told Serrano.

Except he really wasn’t.

Waiting for him as he exited the small courtroom were five federal agents who cuffed him against the wall, escorted him to the garage and whisked him away in a van along with a dozen other immigrants detained the same day.

They weren’t the only ones. Across the United States in immigration courts from New York to Seattle this week, Homeland Security officials are ramping up enforcement actions in what appears to be a coordinated dragnet testing out new legal levers deployed by President Trump’s administration to carry out mass arrests.

While Trump campaigned on a pledge of mass removals of what he calls “illegals,” he’s struggled to carry out his plans amid a series of lawsuits, the refusal of some foreign governments to take back their nationals and a lack of detention facilities to house migrants.

Arrests are extremely rare in or immediately near immigration courts, which are run by the Justice Department. When they have occurred, it was usually because the individual was charged with a criminal offense or their asylum claim had been denied.

“All this is to accelerate detentions and expedite removals,” said immigration attorney Wilfredo Allen, who has represented migrants at the Miami court for decades.

Dismissal orders came down this week, officials say

Three U.S. immigration officials said government attorneys were given the order to start dismissing cases when they showed up for work Monday, knowing full well that federal agents would then have a free hand to arrest those same individuals as soon as they stepped out of the courtroom. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they feared losing their jobs.

AP reporters on Wednesday witnessed detentions and arrests or spoke to attorneys whose clients were picked up at immigration courthouses in Los Angeles, Phoenix, New York, Seattle, Chicago and Texas.

The latest effort includes people who have no criminal records, migrants with no legal representation and people who are seeking asylum, according to reports received by the American Immigration Lawyers Assn. While detentions have been happening over the past few months, on Tuesday the number of reports skyrocketed, said Vanessa Dojaquez-Torres, practice and policy counsel at the association.

In the case of Serrano in Miami, the request for dismissal was delivered by a government attorney who spoke without identifying herself on the record. When the AP asked for the woman’s name, she refused and hastily exited the courtroom past one of the groups of plainclothes federal agents stationed throughout the building.

The Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees immigration courts, referred questions to the Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is part of Homeland Security, said in a statement that it was detaining people who are subject to fast-track deportation authority.

Outside the Miami courthouse on Wednesday, a Cuban man was waiting for one last glimpse of his 22-year-old son. Initially, when his son’s case was dismissed, his father assumed it was a first, positive step toward legal residency. But the hoped-for reprieve quickly turned into a nightmare.

“My whole world came crashing down,” said the father, breaking down in tears. The man, who asked not to be identified for fear of arrest, described his son as a good kid who rarely left his Miami home except to go to work.

“We thought coming here was a good thing,” he said of his son’s court appearance.

Antonio Ramos, an immigration attorney with an office next to the Miami courthouse, said the government’s new tactics are likely to have a chilling effect in Miami’s large migrant community, discouraging otherwise law-abiding individuals from showing up for their court appearances for fear of arrest.

“People are going to freak out like never before,” he said.

‘He didn’t even have a speeding ticket’

Serrano entered the U.S. in September 2022 after fleeing his homeland due to threats associated with his work as an advisor to a politician in the Colombian capital, Bogota, according to his girlfriend, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of being arrested and deported. Last year, he submitted a request for asylum, she said.

She said the couple met working on a cleanup crew to remove debris near Tampa following Hurricane Ian in September 2022.

“He was shy and I’m extroverted,” said the woman, who is from Venezuela.

The couple slept on the streets when they relocated to Miami but eventually scrounged together enough money — she cleaning houses, he working construction — to buy a used car and rent a one-bedroom apartment for $1,400 a month.

The apartment is decorated with photos of the two in better times, standing in front of the Statue of Liberty in New York, visiting a theme park and lounging at the beach. She said the two worked hard, socialized little and lived a law-abiding life.

“He didn’t even have a speeding ticket. We both drive like grandparents,” she said.

The woman was waiting outside the courthouse when she received a call from her boyfriend. “He told me to go, that he had been arrested and there was nothing more to do,” she said.

She was still processing the news and deciding how she would break it to his elderly parents. Meanwhile, she called an attorney recommended by a friend to see if anything could be done to reverse the arrest.

“I’m grateful for any help,” she said as she shuffled through her boyfriend’s passport, migration papers and IRS tax receipts. “Unfortunately, not a lot of Americans want to help us.”

Goodman and Salomon write for the Associated Press. AP reporters Martha Bellisle in Seattle, Sophia Tareen in Chicago, Valerie Gonzalez in McAllen, Texas, and Amy Taxin in Santa Ana, Calif., contributed to this report.

May 22 (UPI) — A federal judge in Massachusetts issued an injunction Thursday that blocks the Trump administration from its plan to dismantle the Department of Education, and that those employees recently fired from the department be rehired.

U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun stated in his ruling: “The Department must be able to carry out its functions and its obligations under the [Department of Education Organization Act] and other relevant statutes as mandated by Congress.”

Education Department spokesperson Madi Biedermann stated Thursday that the administration “will immediately challenge this on an emergency basis.”

Joun ruled on the first civil action that was filed by the State of New York against Education Department Secretary Linda McMahon and Somerville Public Schools of Massachusetts against President Donald Trump that stated “a preliminary injunction is warranted to return the Department to the status quo such that it can comply with its statutory obligations.”

President Donald Trump had issued an executive order in March that sought to close the department, despite the Department of Education Organization Act, which shows that as the Department was created by Congress, it can only be closed by an act of Congress.

On May 21, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa stunned the world by announcing that his government had officially granted refugee status to 48 million African Americans. The decision, made through an executive order titled “Addressing the Egregious Actions and Extensive Failures of the US Government”, was unveiled at a news conference held in the tranquil gardens of the Union Buildings in Pretoria.

Poised and deliberate, Ramaphosa framed the announcement as a necessary and humane response to what he called “the absolute mayhem” engulfing the United States. Flanked by Maya Johnson, president of the African American Civil Liberties Association, and her deputy Patrick Miller, Ramaphosa declared that South Africa could no longer ignore the plight of a people “systematically impoverished, criminalised, and decimated by successive US governments”.

Citing a dramatic deterioration in civil liberties under President Donald Trump’s second term, Ramaphosa specifically pointed to the administration’s barrage of executive orders dismantling affirmative action, gutting DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) initiatives, and permitting federal contractors to discriminate freely. These measures, he said, are calculated to “strip African Americans of dignity, rights, and livelihood – and to make America white again”.

“This is not policy,” Ramaphosa said, “this is persecution.”

President Trump’s 2024 campaign was unabashed in its calls to “defend the homeland” from what it framed as internal threats – a barely veiled dog whistle for the reassertion of white political dominance. True to his word, Trump has unleashed what critics are calling a rollback not just of civil rights, but of civilisation itself.

Ramaphosa noted that under the guise of restoring law and order, the federal government has instituted what amounts to an authoritarian crackdown on Black political dissent. Since Trump’s inauguration in January, he said, hundreds of African American activists have been detained by security forces – often on dubious charges – and interrogated under inhumane conditions.

While Ramaphosa focused on systemic oppression, Johnson sounded the alarm on what she bluntly described as “genocide”.

“Black Americans are being hunted,” she told reporters. “Night after night, day after day, African Americans across the country are being attacked by white Americans. These criminals claim they are ‘reclaiming’ America. Police departments, far from intervening, are actively supporting these mobs – providing logistical aid, shielding them from prosecution, and joining in the carnage.”

The African American Civil Liberties Association estimates that in the past six weeks alone, thousands of African Americans have been threatened, assaulted, disappeared, or killed, she said.

The crisis has not gone unnoticed by the remainder of the continent. Last week, the African Union convened an emergency summit to address the deteriorating situation in the US. In a rare unified statement, AU leaders condemned the US government’s actions and tasked President Ramaphosa with raising the issue before the United Nations.

Their mandate? Repatriate African Americans and offer refuge.

Ramaphosa confirmed that the first charter flights carrying refugees will arrive on African soil on May 25 – Africa Day.

“As the sun sets on this dark chapter of American history,” Ramaphosa said, “a new dawn is rising over Africa. We will not remain passive while a genocide unfolds in the United States.”

***

Of course, none of this has happened.

There was no statement on “Egregious Actions and Extensive Failures of the US Government” from South Africa. There was no news conference where an African leader highlighted the plight of his African brothers and sisters in the United States and offered them options.

There will be no refuge flights from Detroit to Pretoria.

Instead, after the US cut off aid to South Africa, repeated false accusations that a “white genocide” is taking place there and began welcoming Afrikaners as refugees, a pragmatic Ramaphosa paid a respectful visit to the White House on May 21.

During his visit, watched closely by the world media, he did not even mention the millions of African Americans facing discrimination, police violence and abuse under a president who is clearly determined to “Make America White Again” – let alone offer them refuge in Africa. Even when Trump insisted, without any basis in reality, that a genocide is being perpetrated against white people in his country, Ramaphosa did not bring up Washington’s long list of – very real, systemic, and seemingly accelerating – crimes against Black Americans.

He tried to remain polite and diplomatic, focusing not on the racist hostility of the American administration but on the important ties between the two nations.

Perhaps, in the real world, it is too much to ask an African leader to risk diplomatic fallout by defending Black lives abroad.

Perhaps it is easier to shake hands with a man who calls imaginary white suffering a “genocide” rather than to call out a real one unfolding on his watch.

In another world, Ramaphosa stood tall in Pretoria and told Trump`: “We will not accept your lies about our country – and we will not stay silent as you brutalise our kin in yours.”

In this one, he stood quietly in Washington – and did.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

On Oct. 29, 2022, the universe told Dr. Casey Means her fate lay in Los Angeles.

President Trump’s new pick for surgeon general wrote in her popular online newsletter of her epiphany, which came during a dawn hike among the cadmium-colored California oaks and flames of wild mustard flower painting the Topanga Canyon: “You must move to LA. This is where your partner is!’”

Los Angeles has been a Shangri-La for health-seekers since its Gold Rush days as the sanitarium capital of the United States.

Today, it’s the epicenter of America’s $480-billion wellness industry, where gym-fluencers, plant-medicine gurus and celebrity physicians trade health secrets and discount codes across their blue-check Instagram pages and chart-topping podcasts.

But by earning Trump’s nod, Means, 37, has ascended to a new level of power, bringing her singular focus on metabolic dysfunction as the root of ill health and her unorthodox beliefs about psilocybin therapy and the perils of vaccines to the White House.

The surgeon general is the country’s first physician, and the foremost authority on American medicine. Means’ central philosophy — that illness “is a result of the choices you make” — puts her in lockstep with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and in opposition to generations of U.S. public health officials.

Means declined to comment. But interviews with friends and her public writings track a metamorphosis since her move to L.A., from a med-tech entrepreneur and emerging wellness guru to the new face of Trump’s “Make America Healthy Again” movement, or MAHA for short.

If confirmed, America’s next top doctor will bring another unconventional addition to the surgeon general’s uniform: a baby bump. Friends told The Times Means and her husband, Brian Nickerson, are expecting a baby this fall.

“[The pregnancy] will definitely empower her,” said Dr. Darshan Shah, a popular longevity expert and longtime friend of Means. “It might create even more of a sense of urgency.”

On this, both supporters and critics agree. Fertility is a primal obsession of the MAHA movement, and a unifying policy priority among otherwise heterodox MAGA figureheads from Elon Musk to JD Vance. In this worldview, motherhood itself is a credential.

“She’s going to say, ‘I’m a mom, and the reason why you can trust me is I’m a mom,’” said Jessica Malaty Rivera, an infectious disease epidemiologist and an outspoken critic of Means.

Mothers have long been the standard-bearers for Kennedy’s wellness crusade. “MAHA moms” flanked him at the White House during a roundtable in March, where they filmed themselves struggling to pronounce common food additives. Many flocked to Trump after the president vowed to put Kennedy in charge of the nation’s healthcare.

Deena Metzger at her Topanga home. Metzger is a poet, novelist, essayist, storyteller, teacher, healer and medicine woman who has taught and counseled for over fifty years.

(Al Seib/For The Times)

“It’s such a radical change that’s required [in medicine],” said the writer and healer Deena Metzger, 88, whom Means has called one of her “spiritual guides.” “It’s wildly exciting that she might be surgeon general, because she’s really thinking about health.”

Her outsider status gives her a clear-eyed perspective, her supporters say.

“The answer to our metabolic dysfunction is through lifestyle,” said Dr. Sara Szal Gottfried, an OBGYN and longtime friend of Means. “Seventy percent of our healthcare costs are due to lifestyle choices, and that’s where she starts.”

Means’ 2024 bestseller “Good Energy” touts much the same message: Simple individual changes could make most people healthy, but the medical system profits by keeping them sick.

“Moms (and families) will not stand anymore for a country that profits massively off kids getting chronically sick,” Means posted on X on Jan. 30. “Nothing can stop the frustration that is leading to this movement.”

Critics say that elides a more complex reality.

“This is what we call terrain theory — it’s the inverse of germ theory,” said Rivera, the epidemiologist. “Terrain theory has a very deeply racist and kind of eugenic origin, in which certain people got sick and certain people didn’t.”

She and others point out that Means is being elevated at the same time the administration guts public health infrastructure, slashing staff and research funding and aiming to cut billions more from public safety net programs.

“MAHA is why we are defunding the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health],” Rivera said. “Thirteen million people could be uninsured because of [Medicaid cuts].”

But trust in those institutions — and in physicians generally — has tanked in the past five years, surveys show.

The blurring of personal pathos and professional authority at a moment of crisis for institutional medicine is central to MAHA’s influence and power, public health experts say. They point to the movement’s broad appeal from cerulean Santa Monica to crimson Gaines County, Texas, as evidence that health skepticism transcends political lines.

“[MAHA] has sucked in a lot of my blue friends and turned them purple,” Rivera said. “I have people doing the mental gymnastics of ‘I’m not MAGA, I’m just MAHA.’ I’m like, ‘I don’t think you realize those two things are one thing now.’”

Means’ own celebrity is similarly vast, uniting Americans fed up with what they see as a sclerotic and corrupt medical system.

Her opposition to California’s stringent childhood vaccine mandates, enthusiasm for magic mushrooms, and obsession with all things “clean” and “natural” have endeared her to everyone from raw milk fans to anti-vaxxers to boosters of Luigi Mangione, the accused killer of a healthcare chief executive who regularly receives fan mail while awaiting trial in Brooklyn’s Metropolitan Detention Center.

“We’ve never had anyone in that role [of surgeon general] who almost anyone knew who they were,” Dr. Joel Warsh, a Studio City pediatrician and fellow MAHA luminary, whose book on vaccines “Between a Shot and a Hard Place” came out this week. “We know the public loves her.”

That adoration may yet outshine concerns over Means’ medical qualifications — despite her elite education, she left just months before the end of her residency as an ear, nose and throat surgeon at Oregon Health & Science University. Her Oregon medical license is current but inactive and her experience in public health policy is limited.

And while the nominee vigorously defends the brand partnerships that often bookend her newsletters and social media posts, others see the dark side of L.A. influence in the practice.

“L.A. is its own universe when it comes to wellness,” Rivera said. “You can convince anybody to buy a $19 strawberry at Erewhon and say it’s worth it, the same way you can sell people colonics and detox cleanses and all kinds of wellness smoke and mirrors.”

Means made her name as CEO of a subscription health tracking service whose distinguishing feature is blood sugar monitoring for non-diabetics — a practice she touts across several chapters of her book. Her newsletter readers are regularly offered 20% off $1.50-per-pill probiotics or individually packaged matcha mix promising “radiant skin” for its drinkers.

More recently, she’s partnered with WeNatal, a bespoke prenatal vitamin company whose flagship product contains almost the same essential molecules as the brands offered through Medicaid — the insurance half of pregnant Californians use. Taking it daily from conception to birth would cost close to $600.

“So many of the companies that she supports, so many of the companies selling snake oil have some connection to or presence in Los Angeles,” Rivera went on. “It is the mecca for that kind of stuff.”

Even some in the doctor’s inner circle have misgivings about the world of influence that launched her, and the administration she’s poised to join.

Deena Metzger is at the center of a web of influence surgeon general nominee Dr. Casey Means found when she moved to L.A.

(Al Seib / For The Times)

“I’m not sure the obsession with wellness is really about wellness,” Metzger said, her husky Gentle Boy lying at her feet in her home in Topanga. “There’s wellness, which is maybe even a social fabrication, and there’s health.”

The writer and breast cancer survivor has spent decades convening doctors and other healers on this mountaintop as part of her ReVisioning Medicine councils, probing the question posed variously by Soviet writer Mikhail Bulgakov and American humanitarian Dr. Paul Farmer, Jewish philosopher-physician Moses ben Maimon and fictional heartthrob Dr. Robby on “The Pitt”: Can we create a medicine that does no harm?

“How do you believe in that? Or associate with it?” she wondered about the MAHA movement her friend had helped to birth. “But If she’s there and she has power to do things, it will be good for us.”

While mainstream medical authorities and wellness gurus agree that pesticides, plastics and ultraprocessed foods harm public health, they diverge on how much weight to give MAHA’s preferred targets and how to enact policy prescriptions that actually affect them.

“We have people forming a social movement around beef tallow — let’s get that focused on alcohol reduction, tobacco reduction,” said Dr. Jon-Patrick Allem, an expert in social media and health communication. “I don’t disagree with reducing ultraprocessed foods. I don’t disagree with removing dyes from foods. But are these the main drivers of chronic disease?”

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is facing one of the deepest crises in its history. United States President Donald Trump sanctioned lead prosecutor Karim Khan earlier this year, grinding the court’s work to a crawl. Khan is now on leave as he faces a sexual misconduct investigation. How is the court functioning in his absence, and what does it mean for the future of international accountability?

A ‘comprehensive review’ of the US’s chaotic military withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 has also been ordered.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that the United States is reviewing whether to designate Afghanistan’s rulers, the Taliban, as a “foreign terrorist organization”.

Rubio told the House Foreign Affairs Committee during a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on Wednesday, “I believe that classification is now, once again, under review.”

The response came a day after US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered a “comprehensive review” of the United States’s chaotic military withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, an evacuation operation in which 13 US service members and 150 Afghans were killed at Kabul’s airport in an ISIL (ISIS) bombing.

Hegseth said in a memo on Tuesday that after three months of assessing the withdrawal, a comprehensive review was needed to ensure accountability for this event.

“This remains an important step toward regaining faith and trust with the American people and all those who wear the uniform, and is prudent based on the number of casualties and equipment lost during the execution of this withdrawal operation,” Hegseth wrote.

Former President Joe Biden’s administration, which oversaw the pull-out, mostly blamed the resulting chaos on a lack of planning and reductions in troops by the first Donald Trump administration, following its deal with the Taliban to accelerate the withdrawal of US forces.

Trump had signed the deal with the Taliban in Doha in February 2020 aimed at ending its 18-year war in Afghanistan, beginning with the withdrawal of about 4,000 troops “within months”.

The then-Trump administration had agreed it would withdraw from the country by May 2021 if the Taliban negotiated a peace agreement with the Afghan government and promised to prevent internationally designated terrorist groups, such as al-Qaeda and ISIL, from gaining a foothold in the country.

After assuming office in January 2021, Biden said he had to respect the agreement or risk new conflicts with the Taliban, which could have required additional troops in Afghanistan.

On the 2024 campaign trail, Trump frequently criticised Biden and his administration for the withdrawal, saying that the manner in which it was done “was the most embarrassing day in the history of our country’s life.” Trump said that the withdrawal should have been done with “dignity, with strength, with power.”

Senior US military officials, including then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and the then-top US general, Mark Milley, have already appeared before lawmakers to give their testimonies regarding the withdrawal.

The war in Afghanistan from 2001-2021 was the US’s longest war, surpassing Vietnam.

It remains unclear how Hegseth’s review would differ from the many previous reviews carried out by the US military, Department of State and Trump’s fellow Republicans in the House of Representatives.

US Central Command, which oversees operations in the Middle East, has also carried out an investigation into the ISIL attack on Kabul during the last few days of the withdrawal.

The administration of President Donald Trump has begun the process of ending the federal government’s involvement in reforming local police departments, a civil rights effort that gained steam after the deaths of unarmed Black people like George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.

On Wednesday, the United States Department of Justice announced it would cancel two proposed settlements that would have seen the cities of Louisville, Kentucky, and Minneapolis, Minnesota, agree to federal oversight of their police departments.

Generally, those settlements — called consent decrees — involve a series of steps and goals that the two parties negotiate and that a federal court helps enforce.

In addition, the Justice Department said it would withdraw reports on six other local police departments which found patterns of discrimination and excessive violence.

The Trump administration framed the announcement as part of its efforts to transfer greater responsibility towards individual cities and states — and away from the federal government.

“It’s our view at the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division under the Trump administration that federal micromanagement of local police should be a rare exception, and not the norm,” said Harmeet Dhillon, an assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, said.

She argued that such federal oversight was a waste of taxpayer funds.

“There is a lack of accountability. There is a lack of local control. And there is an industry here that is, I think, ripping off the taxpayers and making citizens less safe,” Dhillon said.

But civil rights leaders and police reform advocates reacted with outrage over the news, which arrived just days before the fifth anniversary of Floyd’s murder.

Reverend Al Sharpton was among the leaders who called for police departments to take meaningful action after a viral video captured Floyd’s final moments. On May 25, 2020, a white police officer, Derek Chauvin, leaned his knee on Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes, causing him to asphyxiate and die.

“This move isn’t just a policy reversal,” Sharpton said. “It’s a moral retreat that sends a chilling message that accountability is optional when it comes to Black and Brown victims.”

He warned that the Trump administration’s move sent a signal to police departments that they were “above scrutiny”.

The year of Floyd’s murder was also marked by a number of other high-profile deaths, including Taylor’s.

The 26-year-old medical worker was in bed late at night on March 13, 2020, when police used a battering ram to break into her apartment. Her boyfriend feared they were being attacked and fired his gun once. The police responded with a volley of bullets, killing Taylor, who was struck six times.

Her death and others stirred a period of nationwide unrest in the US, with millions of people protesting in the streets as part of social justice movements like Black Lives Matter. It is thought that the 2020 “racial reckoning” was one of the biggest mass demonstrations in US history.

Those protests unfolded in the waning months of Trump’s first term, and when Democrat Joe Biden succeeded him as president in 2021, the Justice Department embarked on a series of 12 investigations looking into allegations of police overreach and excessive violence on the local level.

Those investigations were called “pattern-or-practice” probes, designed to look into whether incidents of police brutality were one-offs or part of a larger trend in a given police department.

Floyd’s murder took place in Minneapolis and Taylor’s in Louisville — the two cities where the Trump Justice Department decided to drop its settlements on Wednesday. In both cities, under Biden, the Justice Department had found patterns of discriminatory policing.

“Police officers must often make split-second decisions and risk their lives to keep their communities safe,” the report on Minneapolis reads.

But, it adds, the local police department “used dangerous techniques and weapons against people who committed at most a petty offence and sometimes no offense at all”.

Other police departments scrutinised during this period included ones in Phoenix, Arizona; Memphis, Tennessee; Trenton, New Jersey; Mount Vernon, New York; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and the Louisiana State Police.

Dhillon, who now runs the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, positioned the retractions of those Biden-era findings as a policy pivot. She also condemned the consent decrees as an overused tool and indicated she would look into rescinding some agreements that were already in place.

That process would likely involve a judge’s approval, however.

And while some community advocates have expressed concerns that consent decrees could place a burden on already over-stretched law enforcement departments, others disagree with the Justice Department’s latest move, arguing that a retreat could strip resources and momentum from police reform.

At the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD), Chief Paul Humphrey said the commitment to better policing went beyond any settlement. He indicated he would look for an independent monitor to oversee reforms.

“It’s not about these words on this paper,” he said. “It’s about the work that the men and women of LMPD, the men and women of metro government and the community will do together in order to make us a safer, better place.”

And in Minneapolis, Mayor Jacob Frey doubled down, saying he could keep pushing forward with the police reform plan his city had agreed to.

“We will comply with every sentence of every paragraph of the 169-page consent decree that we signed this year,” he said at a news conference.

“We will make sure that we are moving forward with every sentence of every paragraph of both the settlement around the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, as well as the consent decree.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump used a White House meeting to forcefully confront South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, accusing the country of failing to address Trump’s baseless claim of the systematic killing of white farmers.

Trump even dimmed the lights of the Oval Office to play a video of a far-left politician chanting a song that includes the lyrics “kill the farmer.” He also leafed through news articles to underscore his point, saying the country’s white farmers have faced “death, death, death, horrible death.”

Trump had already cut all U.S. assistance to South Africa and welcomed several dozen white South African farmers to the U.S. as refugees as he pressed the case that a “genocide” is underway in the country.

The U.S. president has launched a series of accusations at South Africa’s Black-led government, claiming it is seizing land from white farmers, enforcing anti-white policies and pursuing an anti-American foreign policy.

Experts in South Africa say there is no evidence of white people being targeted for their race, although farmers of all races are victims of violent home invasions in a country that suffers from a very high crime rate.

“People are fleeing South Africa for their own safety,” Trump said. “Their land is being confiscated and in many cases they’re being killed.”

Ramaphosa pushed back against Trump’s accusation. The South African leader had sought to use the meeting to set the record straight and salvage his country’s relationship with the United States. The bilateral relationship is at its lowest point since South Africa enforced its apartheid system of racial segregation, which ended in 1994.

“We are completely opposed to that,” Ramaphosa said of the behavior alleged by Trump in their exchange. He added, “that is not government policy” and “our government policy is completely, completely against what he was saying.”

Trump was unmoved.

“When they take the land, they kill the white farmer,” he said.

At the start of the Oval Office meeting, Trump described the South African president as a “truly respected man in many, many circles.” He added: “And in some circles he’s considered a little controversial.”

Ramaphosa chimed in, playfully jabbing back at a U.S. president who is no stranger to controversy. “We’re all like that,” Ramaphosa said.

Trump issued an executive order in February cutting all funding to South Africa over some of its domestic and foreign policies. The order criticized the South African government on multiple fronts, saying it is pursuing anti-white policies at home and supporting “bad actors” in the world like the Palestinian militant group Hamas and Iran.

Trump has falsely accused the South African government of a rights violation against white Afrikaner farmers by seizing their land through a new expropriation law. No land has been seized, and the South African government has pushed back, saying U.S. criticism is driven by misinformation.

The Trump administration’s references to the Afrikaner people — who are descendants of Dutch and other European settlers — have also elevated previous claims made by Trump’s South African-born advisor Elon Musk and some conservative U.S. commentators that the South African government is allowing attacks on white farmers in what amounts to a genocide.

That has been disputed by experts in South Africa, who say there is no evidence of white people being targeted, although farmers of all races are victims of violent home invasions in a country that suffers from a very high crime rate.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday said Trump remains ready to “reset” relations with South Africa, but noted that the administration’s concerns about South African policies cut even deeper then the concerns about white farmers.

South Africa has also angered the Trump White House over its move to bring charges at the International Court of Justice accusing Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Ramaphosa has also faced scrutiny in Washington for his past connections to MTN Group, Iran’s second-largest telecom provider. It owns nearly half of Irancell, a joint venture linked with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Ramaphosa served as board chair of MTN from 2002 to 2013.

“When one country is consistently unaligned with the United States on issue after issue after issue after issue, now you become — you have to make conclusions about it,” Rubio told Senate Foreign Relation Committee members at a Tuesday hearing.

With the deep differences, Ramaphosa tried mightily to avoid the sort of contentious engagement that Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky experienced during his late February Oval Office visit, when the Ukrainian leader found himself being berated by Trump and Vice President JD Vance. That disastrous meeting ended with White House officials asking Zelensky and his delegation to leave the White House grounds.

The South African president’s delegation included golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen in his delegation, a gesture to the golf-obsessed U.S. president. Ramaphosa brought Trump a massive book about South Africa’s golf courses. He even told Trump that he’s been working on his golf game, seeming to angle for an invitation to the links with the president.

Luxury goods tycoon and Afrikaner Johann Rupert was also in the delegation to help ease Trump’s concerns that land was being seized from white farmers.

Ramaphosa turned to the golfers, Rupert and others to try to push back gently on Trump and make the case that the issue of crime in South Africa is multidimensional problem.

At one point, Ramaphosa called on Zingiswa Losi, the president of a group of South African trade unions, who told Trump it is true that South Africa is a “violent nation for a number of reasons.” But she told him it was important to understand that Black men and women in rural areas were also being targeted in heinous crimes.

“The problem in South Africa, it is not necessarily about race, but it’s about crime,” Losi said. “We are here to say how do we, both nations, work together to reset, to really talk about investment but also help … to really address the levels of crime we have in our country.”

Musk also attended Wednesday’s talks. He has been at the forefront of the criticism of his homeland, casting its affirmative action laws as racist against white people.

Musk has said on social media that his Starlink satellite internet service isn’t able to get a license to operate in South Africa because he is not Black.

South African authorities say Starlink hasn’t formally applied. It can, but it would be bound by affirmative action laws in the communications sector that require foreign companies to allow 30% of their South African subsidiaries to be owned by shareholders who are Black or from other racial groups disadvantaged under apartheid.

The South African government says its long-standing affirmative action laws are a cornerstone of its efforts to right the injustices of the white minority rule of apartheid, which denied opportunities to Black people and other racial groups.

Imray and Madhani write for the Associated Press. Imray reported from Johannesburg. AP writers Seung Min Kim, Chris Megerian and Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON, May 21 (UPI) — President Donald Trump welcomed the University of Florida’s men’s basketball team to the White House on Wednesday afternoon to celebrate its 2025 NCAA championship season, praising the Gators’ teamwork, grit and determination.

Standing alongside head coach Todd Golden, Trump called Florida’s run “one for the history books” and noted the program’s place in history as the only NCAA Division I school to win three national titles in both basketball (2006, 2007, 2025) and football (1996, 2006, 2008).

The Gators finished a dominant 36-4 season with a 65-63 victory over Houston in what Trump described as “one of the most exciting games and championships” he had seen.

“You refused to let up when the odds were against you,” Trump told the team. “Lesser teams would have crumbled.”

Trump highlighted stellar performances throughout the season, including that by senior guard Walter Clayton Jr., who scored a career-high 34 points in the Final Four against Auburn and became the first player since Larry Bird in 1979 to score 30 points or more in both the Elite Eight and Final Four.

“He’s unbelievably special,” Trump said. “He’s going to be a very early draft pick if they’re smart.”

University of Florida Interim President Kent Fuchs, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a former Florida senator, and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, who served at Florida attorney general.

Golden thanked Trump for the invitation and drew a comparison between the team’s culture and the country’s ideals.

“Mr. President, I’d like to think of our program similarly to how you think of the United States. We’re a meritocracy,” Golden said. “We work really, really hard. No matter what you look like, where you come from, if you put the team first and win, we’re going to play you.”

He then presented the president with a signed Gators jersey featuring the number 47, referencing Trump’s status as the 47th president.

Trump accepted the gift and invited the team to the Oval Office for commemorative coins and photos alongside members of his administration and several lawmakers.

“Go Gators,” he said. “We love you.”