Trump

SEOUL — In South Korea, the Trump administration’s 25% tariff on imported cars has sent local automakers Hyundai and Kia scrambling to protect one of the country’s most valuable exports. But General Motors, which last year shipped 418,782 units from its factories here to American consumers — or 88.5% of its total sales — may be facing a much larger predicament.

Unlike Hyundai and Kia, which control over 90% of the domestic market here, the Detroit-based automaker produces budget SUVs like the Chevrolet Trax or Chevrolet Trailblazer almost exclusively for the U.S. market. The Trax has been South Korea’s most-exported car since 2023.

That business model has made GM, which operates three factories and employs some 11,000 workers in the country, uniquely exposed to Trump’s auto tariffs, resurfacing long-running concerns in the local automobile industry that the company may ultimately pack up and leave.

Until last month’s tariffs, cars sold between the U.S. and South Korea were untaxed under a bilateral free trade agreement. That helped South Korea become the third-largest automobile exporter to the U.S. last year to the tune of $34.7 billion — or around half of its total automobile exports. In contrast, South Korea bought just $2.1 billion worth of cars from the U.S.

Earlier this month, GM executives estimated that the tariffs would cost the company up to $5 billion this year, adding that the company would boost production in its U.S. plants to offset the hit. With additional factories in Mexico and Canada, GM currently imports around half of the cars that it sells in the U.S.

“If the U.S. tariffs remain in place, GM will no longer have any reason to stay in South Korea,” said Lee Ho-guen, an automotive engineering professor at Daeduk University.

“The tariffs may add up to $10,000 to the sticker price on cars shipped to the U.S., while GM sells less than 50,000 units a year in South Korea. There is very little room for them to adjust their strategy.”

Kim Woong-heon, an official in GM Korea’s labor union, said that the union is approaching current rumors of the company’s potential exit with a dose of caution, but added that broader concerns about the company’s long-term commitment remain.

“The cars we’re manufacturing here are on the lowest end of GM’s price range so labor costs will make it impossible to immediately shift production to the U.S.,” he said.

“But we have painful memories of GM shutting down one of its factories in 2018, so we get nervous every time these rumors surface.”

GM Chevrolet automobiles bound for export sit parked at the Port of Incheon in South Korea.

(SeongJoon Cho / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

This isn’t the first time that GM’s prospects in the country have come under question. The company first established itself in South Korea in 2002 by acquiring the bankrupt Daewoo Motor Co. in a government-backed deal that some at the time criticized as “GM taking the cream off Daewoo for almost nothing.”

Struggling to compete with the likes of Hyundai, GM briefly positioned itself as a production base for European and Asian markets until its bankruptcy in 2009.

Amid the global restructuring efforts that followed, concerns that it would close its South Korean operations led the government to once again intervene. In the end, GM stayed after receiving $750 million in financing from the country’s development bank on the condition that it would remain open for at least 10 more years.

But in 2018, the company closed its factory in the city of Gunsan, which had employed around 1,800 workers, and spun off its research and development unit from its manufacturing base — a move that many saw as the company strategically placing one foot out the door.

In February, shortly after President Trump announced the 25% tariffs on foreign-made cars, Paul Jacobson, GM’s chief financial officer, hinted that the company may once again be facing similarly tough decisions:

“If they become permanent, then there’s a whole bunch of different things that you have to think about in terms of, where do you allocate plants, and do you move plants.”

In recent weeks, executives from GM Korea have sought to assuage the rumors that the company’s South Korean operations would be affected.

“We do not intend to respond to rumors about the company’s exit from Korea,” said Gustavo Colossi, GM Korea’s vice president of sales, at a news conference last month. “We plan to move forward with our sales strategies in Korea and continue launching new models in the coming weeks and months, introducing fresh GM offerings to the market.”

The union says the company’s two finished car plants have been running at full capacity, with an additional 21,000 units recently allocated to the factory in Incheon, a city off the country’s western coast — a sign that business will go on as usual for now.

But with GM’s 10-year guarantee set to expire in 2027, Kim, the union official, said that their demands for measures that prove the company’s commitment beyond that have gone unanswered.

These include manufacturing GM’s electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles in South Korean factories, as well as making a greater range of its products available for sale in South Korea and other Asian markets.

”If the company intends to continue its operations here, it needs to make its business model more sustainable and not as reliant on imports to the U.S.,” Kim said.

“That will be our core demand at this year’s wage and collective bargaining negotiations.”

GM’s immediate prospects in the country will depend on the ongoing tariff talks between U.S. and South Korean officials that began last month with the goal of producing a deal by July 8.

Although South Korean trade minister Ahn Duk-geun has stressed that cars are “the most important part of the U.S.-South Korea trade relationship,” few expect that Seoul will be able to finesse the sort of deal given to the U.K., which last week secured a 10% rate on the first 100,000 vehicles shipped to the U.S. each year.

Unlike South Korea, which posted a $66-billion trade surplus with the U.S. last year, the U.K. buys more from the U.S. than it sells. And many of the cars that it does sell to the U.S. are luxury vehicles such as the Rolls-Royce, which Trump has differentiated from the “monster car companies” that make “millions of cars.”

“At some point after the next two years, I believe it’s highly likely GM will leave and keep only their research and development unit here, or at least significantly cut back on their production,” Lee, the automotive professor, said.

In the southeastern port city of Changwon, home to the smaller of GM’s two finished car plants, local officials have been reluctant to give air to what they describe as premature fearmongering.

But Woo Choon-ae, a 62-year-old real estate agent whose clients also include GM workers and their families, can’t help but worry.

She says that the company’s exit would be devastating to the city, which, like many rural areas, has already been under strain from population decline.

GM employs 2,800 workers in the region, but accounts for thousands more jobs at its suppliers. The Changwon factory, which manufactures the Trax, represented around 15% of the city’s total exports last year.

“People work for GM because it offers stable employment until retirement age. If they close the factory here, all of these workers will leave to find work in other cities, which will be a critical blow to the housing market,” she said.

“Homes are how people save money in South Korea. But if people’s savings are suddenly halved, who’s going to be spending money on things like dining out?”

The US president says he is looking for a solution to ‘bad things’ happening in Gaza, including starvation. Donald Trump also predicted progress on Ukraine-Russia peace talks “in two or three weeks”, as he talked to reporters on the final day of his Middle East tour.

May 16 (UPI) — Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced Thursday night that DHS and the Secret Service are investigating a since-deleted picture former FBI Director James Comey published online as a threat targeting President Donald Trump.

“Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey just called for the assassination of @POTUS Trump,” she said online. “DHS and Secret Service is investigating this threat and will respond appropriately.”

Comey had published the now-deleted photo to Instagram. It showed shells on a beach arranged to form the numerals “86 47.”

“Cool shell formation on my beach walk,” Comey had written in the caption.

The number 86 is widely used code in restaurants and the hospitality industry meaning an item is either sold out, no longer available or should be removed from a dish. The Merriam-Webster dictionary says it is slag meaning to eject, dismiss or remove.

The number 47 suggests Trump, who is the 47th president of the United States.

The president’s eldest child, Donald Trump Jr., published a screenshot of the deleted post to his X account, describing the image as “James Comey casually calling for my dad to be murdered.”

In a follow-up post on Instagram, Comey explained that he had assumed the shells conveyed a political statement but not one suggesting violence.

“I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on a beach walk, which I assumed were a political message. I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence,” he said. “It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.”

FBI Director Kash Patel said in a statement that the FBI is aware of the post “directed at President Trump” and is in contact with the Secret Service.

“Primary jurisdiction is with SS on these matters and we, the FBI, will provide all necessary support,” he said.

UPI has contacted the Secret Service for comment.

Tulsi Gabbard, director of National Intelligence, also described the image on X as Comey issuing “a call to action to murder the President of the United States.”

In an interview with Fox News, Gabbard said Comey should be jailed for it.

“I’m very concerned for the president’s life,” she said. “And James Comey, in my view, should be held accountable and put behind bars for this.”

Comey served as director of the FBI from 2013 until he was fired by Trump during his first term in 2017, during which his office investigated Russian interference into the 2016 election and Hillary Clinton‘s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

Senators accuse US President Donald Trump of engaging in ‘corruption of US foreign policy’ with defence deals.

A group of United States senators is trying to halt $3.5bn in weapons sales to the United Arab Emirates and Qatar over concerns that the deals will personally benefit the family of US President Donald Trump.

Two “resolutions of disapproval” were submitted on Thursday in the US by Democratic Senators Chris Murphy, Chris Van Hollen, Brian Schatz and Tim Kaine, along with Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent who often votes with Democrats.

The legislators also issued statements accusing President Trump, who is concluding a trip to the Middle East, of actively engaging in the “corruption of US foreign policy” over the timing of the sales and recent investment deals.

The Department of State this week approved the $1.6bn sale to the UAE of Chinook helicopters and equipment, F-16 aircraft components, and spare and repair parts to support Apache, Black Hawk and Chinook helicopters. Initial reporting cited the figure as close to $1.3bn, but the $1.6bn figure was used in a statement from the legislators. The lawmakers are also seeking to block $1.9bn in sales to Qatar of MQ-9B Predator drones and associated equipment, which was approved by the State Department in March.

The legislators accuse Trump of accepting favours in exchange for the deals, citing news from April that the Emirati investment firm MGX would use a stablecoin – a cryptocurrency whose value is pegged to another asset – issued by the Trump family-backed World Liberty Financial to finance a $2bn investment in the cryptocurrency exchange Binance.

The Trump family is reported to have made millions off niche cryptocurrencies like the $TRUMP “meme coin” since the president returned to the White House in January.

I know Trump’s crypto scams can seem hard to understand. So I went the Senate floor to break down the most outrageous one.

A foreign government is investing $2 billion in Trump’s coin to get favorable treatment from the Administration. A wild corruption.

Here’s how it works. pic.twitter.com/pxLSlZH2QN

— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) May 13, 2025

In addition to business dealings, the senators also expressed fears that US weapons sent to the UAE could end up in the hands of Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, which is allegedly backed by the UAE and has played a critical role in Sudan’s civil war.

“The US should not be delivering weapons to the UAE as it aids and abets this humanitarian disaster and gross human rights violations,” Van Hollen said, citing Sudan’s civil war.

The senators also cited Qatar’s offer of a Boeing 747 jumbo for the president’s temporary use as Air Force One. The offer has drawn criticism from both Democrats and some Republicans because it would be the most expensive foreign gift ever exchanged between a foreign government and an elected US official.

“There’s nothing Donald Trump loves more than being treated like a king, and that’s exactly why foreign governments are trying to buy his favour with a luxury jumbo jet and investments in Trump’s crypto scams,” Murphy said in a statement.

When asked about the offer of the aircraft, Trump blamed Boeing’s lack of progress in building a new Air Force One and said he would be “stupid” to refuse a free plane.

“It’s not a gift to me, it’s a gift to the Department of Defense,” he said.

It is unclear when a vote will happen on the joint “resolutions of disapproval”, but the US political news outlet The Hill said that due to the nature of the bills, Democrats will likely force them to the floor of the Senate.

US President Donald Trump, who promised to end America’s foreign military campaigns, has paid a visit to US troops stationed in Qatar. Trump praised the US’s deadly arsenal, hit out at his predecessor and made fun of France.

Bruce Springsteen accused the Trump administration of persecuting dissenters during a concert in the UK, an apparent reference to the recent arrests of pro-Palestinian activists. The musician also condemned the US government for “abandoning allies and siding with dictators.”

Washington, DC – Justices at the US Supreme Court have questioned lawyers representing the administration of US President Donald Trump and those challenging his effort to end birthright citizenship in the country.

The hearing on Thursday represented the first time the top court in the United States has heard a case related to Trump’s January 20 order seeking to do away with the more-than-century-old policy, which grants citizenship to nearly all infants born on US soil, regardless of their parents’ legal status.

It was not immediately clear when the court would issue a ruling in the case, although an outcome could take weeks. It also remained unclear if the justices would address the underlying constitutionality of Trump’s order, or if they would only rule on the narrower question of whether lower federal court justices are empowered to block the implementation of the order nationwide.

Still, demonstrators and lawmakers who gathered outside of the Washington, DC courthouse said any ruling challenging birthright citizenship would corrode the national fabric of the US.

“We are here at the highest court in the land because a fundamental promise of America is under attack. And we are here to say not on our watch,” Ama Frimpong, the legal director of CASA, told those gathered in protest.

“All persons born in the US are citizens of the US,” Frimpong said.

Legal experts have also said a ruling limiting federal courts’ ability to order a “national” or “universal” injunction to block Trump’s executive actions would in and of itself be transformative.

“That question, in a normal sense, would already shake the legal foundation of the country: whether lower courts have the right to order nationwide injunctions,” said Al Jazeera’s Heidi Zhou-Castro from outside the courthouse.

“But it’s the second question that really people are focused on, and that is if Trump has the power to cancel birthright citizenship for the children born to undocumented immigrants and certain visa holders visiting the US,” she said.

“Now it is up to the justices whether they want to go in either of those directions.”

‘Catch me if you can kind of regime’

Over two hours of questioning, lawyers for the Trump administration, as well as those representing states and individuals who have challenged Trump’s order, addressed matters both of constitutional grandeur and legal minutia.

Solicitor General John Sauer began by laying out the Trump administration’s broad argument that the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, has been incorrectly interpreted since then. The amendment, Sauer argued, “guarantees citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors”.

Trump also reiterated that position in a Truth Social post ahead of the hearing, saying birthright citizenship makes the US a “STUPID Country” that incentivises people to visit to have children.

Sauer also took aim at the three federal judges who have ruled in favour of separate lawsuits challenging the law’s constitutionality. Plaintiffs in those cases include 22 state attorneys general, immigrant rights organisations, and individuals affected by the rule. Sauer argued that the judges’ decisions should only apply to the plaintiffs in the cases, and not the entire nation.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether the broader constitutional question could be unpicked from the narrower question of the judges’ reach, saying the president’s order violates “by my count, four established Supreme Court precedents”.

That included the 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v Wong Kim Ark, which first established that the 14th Amendment applies to immigrants, she said.

Other justices questioned the implications of a scenario where the court ruled that the judges could not issue “national injunctions” in the case, without answering the underlying constitutional question.

Legal scholars have noted that this could create a situation where Trump’s end to birthright citizenship would not apply to states and individuals who successfully challenged his order in court. That would mean birthright citizenship – at least temporarily – would end in 28 other states if they do not launch their own challenges.

“Does every single person that is affected by this EO [executive order] have to bring their own suit?” Justice Elena Kagan questioned.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the Trump administration’s argument turns the US justice system into a “catch me if you can kind of regime”.

Under that, “everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights”.

US president claims he has sealed deals worth $10 trillion during visits to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE.

President Donald Trump has hailed deepening ties between the United States and the United Arab Emirates and said that the latter will invest $1.4 trillion in the former’s artificial intelligence sector over the next decade.

“I have absolutely no doubt that the relationship will only get bigger and better,” Trump said on Thursday at a meeting with UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, on the final leg of his three-country tour of the Gulf region that saw him strike a series of lucrative tech, business and military deals that he said amounted to $10 trillion.

Sheikh Mohammed said the UAE remained “committed to working with the United States to advance peace and stability in our region and globally”.

The deal with UAE is expected to enable the Gulf country to build data centres vital to developing artificial intelligence models. The countries did not say which AI chips could be included in UAE data centres. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang had earlier been seen in conversation with Sheikh Mohamed and Trump.

The AI agreement “includes the UAE committing to invest in, build, or finance U.S. data centres that are at least as large and as powerful as those in the UAE,” the White House said.

Reporting from Doha in Qatar, Al Jazeera’s Hashem Ahelbarra said such a deal had been “a national security concern” for Washington in the past. “But then they decided to change their mind under Trump, particularly when the UAE said that it was willing to invest $1.4 trillion,” he said.

Ahelbarra said the deal was a “significant step” for the UAE, positioning it as “the most important player in artificial intelligence, followed by Saudi Arabia”.

Before his departure for the UAE, Trump said in a speech to US troops at the Al Udeid Air Base southwest of Doha in Qatar that defence purchases signed by Qatar on Wednesday were worth $42bn.

Other agreements signed during Trump’s four-day swing through the Gulf include a deal for Qatar Airways to purchase up to 210 Boeing widebody jets, and a commitment from Saudi Arabia to invest $600bn in the US and to buy $142bn worth of US arms.

The tour also brought a flurry of diplomacy, with Trump saying in Qatar on Thursday that the US was getting close to securing a nuclear deal with Iran. On Tuesday, he said the US would remove longstanding sanctions on Syria.

Trump said he would probably return to Washington on Friday, although he said it was “almost destination unknown because they’ll be getting calls ‘Could you be here? Could you be there?’”

Trump had previously hinted that he could stop in Istanbul for talks on the Russia-Ukraine war.

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — President Trump said Thursday that the United States and Iran have “sort of” agreed to terms on a nuclear deal, offering a measure of confidence that an accord is coming into sharper focus.

Trump, in an exchange with reporters at a business roundtable in Doha, Qatar, described talks between American envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi as “very serious negotiations” for long-term peace and said they were continuing to progress.

Still, throughout his four-day visit to the Gulf this week, the president has underscored that military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities remains a possibility if the talks derail.

“Iran has sort of agreed to the terms: They’re not going to make, I call it, in a friendly way, nuclear dust,” Trump said at the business event. “We’re not going to be making any nuclear dust in Iran.”

Without offering detail, he signaled growing alignment with the terms that he has been seeking.

A top political, military and nuclear advisor to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told NBC News on Wednesday that Tehran stands ready to get rid of its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium that can be weaponized, agree to enrich uranium only to the lower levels needed for civilian use and allow international inspectors to supervise the process.

Ali Shamkhani added that in return, Iran wants an immediate lifting of all economic sanctions.

On Thursday, hours after Trump said the two sides were getting closer to a deal, Araghchi said Tehran’s ability to enrich uranium remained a core right of the Iranian people and a red line in nuclear talks.

“We have said repeatedly that defending Iran’s nuclear rights — including enrichment — is a fundamental principle,” the official said. “This is not something we concede, either in public discourse or in negotiations. It is a right that belongs to the Iranian people, and no one can take it away.”

Trump said his demands have been straightforward.

“They can’t have a nuclear weapon. That’s the only thing. It’s very simple,” Trump said. “It’s not like I have to give you 30 pages worth of details. It is only one sentence. They can’t have a nuclear weapon.”

But Trump on Wednesday suggested he was looking for Tehran to make other concessions as part of a potential agreement.

Iran “must stop sponsoring terror, halt its bloody proxy wars and permanently and verifiably cease pursuit of nuclear weapons,” Trump said in remarks at a meeting in Saudi Arabia, the first stop on the Mideast trip.

Before moving on to the United Arab Emirates from Qatar on Thursday, Trump stopped at a U.S. military installation at the center of American involvement in the Middle East and spoke to U.S. troops. The Republican president has used his visit to Gulf states to reject the “interventionalism” of America’s past in the region.

Al-Udeid Air Base was a major staging ground during the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The base houses some 8,000 U.S. troops, down from about 10,000 at the height of those wars.

Trump told the troops that his “priority is to end conflicts, not start them.”

“But I will never hesitate to wield American power if it’s necessary to defend the United States of America or our partners,” he said.

Trump has held up Gulf nations such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar as models for economic development in a region plagued by conflict. He urged Qatari officials to use their influence to entice Iran to come to terms with his administration on a nuclear deal.

Trump later flew to Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates for the final leg of his trip. He visited the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque, the country’s largest mosque. The United Arab Emirates’ founder, Sheikh Zayed, is buried in the mosque’s main courtyard.

Trump took his shoes off, which is customary, as he stepped into the house of worship and spent time marveling at the architecture.

“It’s beautiful,” Trump said.

He later attended a state visit hosted by United Arab Emirates President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan at the Qasr Al Watan presidential palace. Trump and his delegation were greeted by children wearing traditional robes and waving small U.S. and United Arab Emirates flags, and they were guided through a space exhibit inside the palace.

Al Nahyan also presented Trump with the Order of Zayed, the United Arab Emirates’ highest civil decoration and credited Trump with building the two nations’ economic partnership to new heights.

“This partnership has taken a significant leap forward since you assumed office,” he told Trump.

As he made his way to Abu Dhabi on Thursday, Trump reminded reporters about President Biden’s 2022 fist bump with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, a moment roundly criticized by human rights activists already upset by the Democrat’s decision to hold the meeting. Trump noted in contrast that while in Saudi Arabia and Qatar this week, he had shaken many hands.

“They were starving for love because our country didn’t give them love,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One. “They gave him a fist bump. Remember the fist bump in Saudi Arabia? He travels all the way to Saudi Arabia … and he gives him a fist bump. That’s not what they want. They don’t want a fist bump. They want to shake his hand.”

Miller and Madhani write for the Associated Press. Madhani reported from Dubai. AP writers Amir Vahdat in Tehran and Gabe Levin in Dubai contributed to this report.

Baraka’s defence team say they will file a motion to dismiss trespassing charges pursued by the Trump administration.

Lawyers in the United States have said they will file a motion to dismiss trespassing charges directed at Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, following his arrest during a protest at an immigrant detention centre in New Jersey.

During a hearing in a New Jersey federal court on Thursday, Baraka’s defence team said that they believed he was being selectively prosecuted by the administration of President Donald Trump.

“We believe that the mayor himself was targeted here,” said Rahul Agarwal, one of Baraka’s lawyers.

“The mayor was invited into the facility on Friday,” Agarwal added, pointing out that Baraka was “outside the facility when he was ultimately handcuffed and detained”.

Baraka himself attended the hearing and spoke to supporters outside afterwards. On social media, he framed the criminal complaint as a sham.

“Today, the U.S. Attorney General’s office chose to move forward with a trial over trespassing charges at Delaney Hall. While the charges are unwarranted, we will fight this,” Baraka wrote. “This is bigger than me. It’s about all of us.”

The incident is the latest to underscore growing tensions between the Trump administration and local authorities who oppose his immigration crackdown.

Civil liberties groups have argued that the government is using its power to intimidate or coerce officials who do not align with its priorities on immigration.

The Trump administration’s complaint centres on the events of May 9, when lawmakers and protesters showed up at Delaney Hall, a new detention facility in Newark run by the private company GEO Group.

Baraka has long opposed the 1,000-bed facility, saying it lacks the proper permitting, and he has appeared outside its gates multiple times since its May 1 opening.

On the day of his arrest, Baraka joined three members of the US Congress — LaMonica McIver, Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez — who arrived unannounced “to conduct lawful congressional oversight” of the facility, according to their statements afterwards.

Agarwal said that Baraka was the only person arrested in the incident. Baraka has maintained that he was invited in to the facility and shared a video on social media on Wednesday that he says shows a guard opening the gate to allow him inside the premises.

“Mayor Baraka was at Delaney Hall to join a tour of the detention facility with a congressional delegation as part of their authorized oversight responsibilities,” the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said in a statement on the arrest of Baraka last week.

“Mayor Baraka — and lawmakers across New Jersey and the country — are being targeted by the Trump administration for refusing to be complicit with its ongoing violations of due process.”

However, the government’s criminal complaint alleges that Baraka entered and remained inside the private facility despite multiple warnings to leave. He faces up to 30 days in prison.

“We believe there’s clear evidence that the mayor was within the property,” Assistant US Attorney Stephen Demanovich told US Magistrate Judge Andre Espinosa.

Video of the incident shows an official behind the gate at Delaney Hall telling Baraka he must return outside because “you are not a congressmember”.

Judge Espinosa on Thursday told Baraka he needed to be processed by US Marshals Service after proceedings came to an end.

The Associated Press said the request sparked a moment of confusion in the courtroom. Baraka pointed out that he had already been processed after his arrest, but ultimately agreed to give his fingerprints and take a mugshot a second time.

“They’re trying their best to humiliate and degrade me as much as they possibly can,” said Baraka. “I feel like what we did was completely correct. We did not violate any laws. We stood up for the constitution of this country, the constitution of the state of New Jersey.”

Baraka is considered a leading candidate in the 2025 New Jersey governor’s race.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court gave a skeptical hearing Thursday to a lawyer for President Trump who was appealing rulings that blocked his plan to deny citizenship to newborns whose parents were in this country illegally or temporarily.

None of the justices spoke in favor of Trump’s plan to restrict birthright citizenship, and several were openly skeptical.

“Every court is ruling against you,” said Justice Elena Kagan. “There’s not going to be a lot of disagreement on this.”

If his plan were to take effect, “thousands of children will be born and rendered stateless,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

But Thursday’s hearing was devoted to a procedural question raised by the administration: Can a single federal judge issue a nationwide order to block the president’s plan?

Shortly after Trump issued his executive order to limit birthright citizenship, federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state declared it unconstitutional and blocked its enforcement nationwide.

In response, Trump’s lawyers asked the court to rein in the “epidemic” of nationwide orders handed by district judges.

It’s an issue that has divided the court and bedeviled both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Trump’s lawyers argued that on procedural grounds the judges overstepped their authority. But it is also procedurally unusual for a president to try to revise the Constitution through an executive order.

Thursday’s hearing did not appear to yield a consensus on what to do.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said the plaintiffs should be required to bring a class-action claim if they want to win a broad ruling. But others said that would lead to delays and not solve problem.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said he was looking for a way to decide quickly. “How we get to the merits expeditiously?” he asked.

One possibility was to have the court ask for further briefing and perhaps a second hearing to decide the fundamental question: Can Trump acting on his own revise the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment?

Shortly after the Civil War, the Reconstruction Congress wrote the 14th Amendment, which begins with the words: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Prior to that time, Americans were citizens of their states. Moreover, the Supreme Court in the infamous Dred Scott decision said Black people were not citizens of their states and could not become citizens even if they were living in a free state.

The amended Constitution established U.S. citizenship as a birthright. The only persons not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the laws of the United States were foreign diplomats and their families and, in the 19th century, Indians who were “not taxed” and were treated as citizens of their tribal nations.

However, Congress changed that rule in 1924 and extended birthright citizenship to Native Americans.

Since 1898, the Supreme Court has agreed that birthright citizenship extended to the native-born children of foreign migrants living in this country. The court said then “the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth, notwithstanding the alienage of parents” had been established by law.

The decision affirmed the citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese parents who were living and working there, but who were not U.S. citizens.

But several conservative law professors have disputed the notion that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States means simply that people living here are subject to the laws here.

Instead, they say it refers more narrowly to people who owe their undivided allegiance to this country. If so, they contend it does not extend broadly to illegal immigrants or to students and tourists who are here temporarily.

On Jan. 20, Trump issued an executive order proclaiming the 14th Amendment does not “extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.” He said it would be U.S. policy to not recognize citizenship for newborns if the child’s mother or father was “not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”

Immigrants rights groups sued on behalf of several pregnant women, and they were joined by 22 states and several cities.

Judges wasted no time in declaring Trump’s order unconstitutional. They said his proposed restrictions violated the federal law and Supreme Court precedent as well as the plain words of the 14th Amendment.

In mid-March, Trump’s lawyers sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court with “a modest request.” Rather than decide the “important constitutional questions” involving birthright citizenship, they urged the justices to rein in the practice of district judges handing down nationwide orders.

They have “reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration,” they said.

A month later, and without further explanation, the court agreed to hear arguments based on that request.

The justices are likely to hand down a decision in Trump vs. CASA, but it may not come until late June.

If you voted for Donald Trump last November because you believed he’d increase economic freedom, it’s safe to say you were fooled. Following a reckless tariff barrage, the White House and its allies are preparing a new wave of tax-code gimmickry that has more in common with progressive social engineering than pro-growth reform. And don’t forget a fiscal recklessness that mirrors the mistakes of the left.

Defend these policies if you like, but let’s be clear: The administration shows no coherent commitment to free-market principles and is in fact actively undermining them. Its approach is better described as central planning disguised as economic nationalism.

This week’s example is an executive-order attempt at prescription-drug price control, similar to Democrats’ past proposals. If implemented it would inevitably reduce pharmaceutical R&D and innovation.

Tariffs remain the administration’s most visible economic sin after Trump launched the most extreme escalation of protectionism since the infamous Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. Unlike the 1930s, however, today’s economy is deeply integrated with global supply chains, making the damage extensive and far more immediate. Tariffs are only nominally imposed on imports. Ultimately, they’re taxes on American consumers, workers and businesses.

The president has made it clear that he’s fine with limiting consumer choice, blithely telling parents they might have to “settle” for two dolls instead of 30 for their children. Smug pronouncements about how much we should shop (not much) or which sectors we should work in (manufacturing) are economic authoritarianism.

They’re also indicative of a deeper government rot. Policymaking is now done by executive orders as comatose congressional Republicans, like some Biden-era Democrats, allow the president to rule as if he’s a monarch.

A full-throated, assertive Congress would remind any president that manufacturing jobs were mostly lost to technologies that also create jobs and opportunity in members’ districts. Prosperity increases only through innovation and competition and isn’t restored by dragging people backward into lower-productivity jobs.

Now, even Trump’s tax agenda — once considered a bright spot by many free-market advocates — is being corrupted. Instead of championing the broad-based, pro-growth reforms we’d hoped for, the administration is doubling down on gimmickry: exempting tips and overtime pay, expanding child tax credits and entertaining the idea of raising top marginal tax rates.

These moves might poll well, but they’re unprincipled and unproductive. They undermine the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which aimed (however imperfectly) to simplify the code and incentivize growth, and not to micromanage worker and household behavior through the Internal Revenue Service.

And then there are the administration’s misleading, populist talking points about raising taxes on the rich to reduce taxes on lower- and middle-income workers. The U.S. income-tax system is already one of the most progressive in the developed world. According to the latest IRS data, the top 1% of earners pay more in federal income taxes than the bottom 90% combined. These high earners provide 40% of federal income-tax revenue; the bottom half of earners make up only 3% of that revenue. Thankfully, the House of Representatives steered away from that mistake in its bill.

Meanwhile, some Republican legislators are pushing to extend the 2017 tax cuts without meaningful offsets, setting the stage for a debt-fueled disaster. As noted by Scott Hodge, formerly the longtime president of the Tax Foundation, the GOP’s proposed cuts could add more than $5.8 trillion to the debt over a decade. That’s nearly three times the cost of the 2021 American Rescue Plan, which many Republicans rightly criticized for fueling inflation and fiscal instability.

To be clear: Pro-growth tax reform is essential. But not every tax cut is pro-growth, and no tax cut justifies further fiscal deterioration. Extending the 2017 cuts, which I generally support, shouldn’t be confused with true tax reform.

Some of the provisions being floated — expanded credits, exclusions for tips and overtime, rolling back the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap — are not growth policies. They are wealth redistribution run through the tax code, indistinguishable in substance from the kind of demand-side, Keynesian stimulus Republicans once decried.

Hodge notes that these measures would do more to mimic the American Rescue Plan than to reverse its pricey mistakes. And with the Federal Reserve still fighting inflation, adding trillions in unfunded liabilities to the national ledger is profoundly irresponsible.

None of this should surprise anyone paying attention. This administration is packed with advisors and surrogates who glorify union power, rail against globalization and scoff at the very idea of limited government. Some sound more like Bernie Sanders than Milton Friedman. Whether it’s directing industrial policy or distorting the tax code to reward their favorite behaviors, they are hostile to the competition and liberty of the free market.

Sadly, that hostility has real consequences: higher prices, greater economic uncertainty, sluggish investment and fewer opportunities for middle- and lower-class families.

Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.

Gaza is starving. As Palestinians mark 77 years since the Nakba, families are still under bombardment, cut off from aid and struggling to survive. With US President Donald Trump touring the Gulf, what will it take to bring relief to Palestinians?

The Trump administration says it has accepted an airplane worth an estimated $400 million from the state of Qatar. While Trump is president, the White House says it would be used as the new Air Force One, then it would go to Trump’s presidential library after his term ends.

The aircraft would become the most expensive gift from a foreign government ever to a US elected official, ABC News reported. But some members of Congress say accepting it would be unconstitutional.

When asked about the potential gift at a May 12 executive order signing, Trump blamed Boeing’s lack of progress in building a new Air Force One. He said he would be “stupid” to refuse a free airplane, and said he won’t use it after he leaves office. “It’s not a gift to me, it’s a gift to the Department of Defense,” he said.

What do experts say?

Legal experts told PolitiFact they believe accepting the gift would violate the US Constitution’s emoluments clause, which reads, “No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

The emoluments clause was designed “to prevent foreign nations from gaining improper influence” over US leaders, said David Forte, Cleveland State University emeritus law professor.

Experts differed on whether accepting the plane would be an impeachable offense.

Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor, said that if Trump accepts the gift, it could be an impeachable deed, because it would amount to “a fully corrupt act.”

Forte, however, said the gift wouldn’t necessarily amount to a bribe or an impeachable offense, but it “is a form of influence buying designed to gain the gratitude of the recipient by playing to his vanity.”

Is this the first time Trump is facing such accusations?

During Trump’s first term, Congressional Democrats, private individuals and attorneys general from Maryland and Washington, DC, filed lawsuits against Trump stemming from the emoluments clause.

However, many of the cases were dismissed on procedural grounds, and the US Supreme Court did not rule on the transactions’ underlying constitutionality.

Trump’s possible acceptance of the aircraft is different, said Frank Bowman, a University of Missouri emeritus law professor.

In his first term, Trump said payments were made to his businesses. This time, there would be no connection to Trump’s businesses. It would be a gift offered for free with no promise of payment from the president or the US Treasury, Bowman said.

NBC News, citing an anonymous senior Justice Department official, reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi approved a memo prepared by the agency’s Office of Legal Counsel that deemed it was legal for the Defense Department to accept the gift. Bondi has previously lobbied on behalf of the state of Qatar.

Trump, on his part, has thanked Qatar for the jet.

“If we can get a 747 as a contribution to our Defense Department, during a couple of years whole they’re [Boeing is] building the other one, I think that’s a very nice gesture [from Qatar],” he said on May 12.

Can the emoluments clause be enforced against Trump?

Legal experts said it’s unlikely that Congress, controlled by Republicans, will stop Trump from accepting the gift.

Meghan Faulkner, communications director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, DC, said that since it appears the Justice Department has signed off on receiving the gift, it “could make it harder to hold him accountable”.

Bowman said the Justice Department, according to longstanding policy, wouldn’t prosecute a sitting president.

Faulkner said Trump stands to benefit again after running out the clock on emoluments challenges during his first term. “Enforcing the Emoluments Clause in the courts would face similar challenges (in his second term), including the challenge of finding a plaintiff who has standing to challenge the violations,” she said.

One problem that promoters of cryptocurrencies have faced since the asset class first emerged is that its reputation stinks.

Crypto trading has become identified by regulators and in the public mind as a haven for scams, theft and other forms of sharp practice. The FBI, in its most recent annual report on cryptocurrency, found that crypto-related fraud has exploded. Criminality is “pervasive” in the field, the agency warned.

The elusive use case for crypto assets seemed to have been narrowed down to facilitating criminal fraud, ransomware attacks, drug and human trafficking.

Then came Donald Trump. During the presidential campaign and after his election, crypto promoters thought they were entering the nirvana of officially recognized legitimacy.

Trump signaled that he would end government regulatory initiatives on crypto, “in order to promote United States leadership in digital assets and financial technology while protecting economic liberty,” to quote the executive order he issued Jan. 23, effectively wiping out federal regulations on the class.

Things aren’t working out as they hoped. Since Trump returned to the presidency, his and his family’s involvement in crypto-related deals has critics charging that crypto has become an entirely new path for official corruption and conflicts of interest in the White House.

“Trump’s cryptocurrency ventures are nothing more than a fig leaf for payoffs from foreign nationals & foreign gov’ts,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) tweeted on May 7. Blumenthal’s target was the offer of a sit-down private dinner with Trump scheduled for May 22 at his Virginia golf club, and personal tours of the White House for the biggest buyers of $TRUMP, a “memecoin” assiduously promoted by Trump and his family.

The price of the coin soared to about $74 on Jan. 19, the day before Trump’s inauguration. It immediately fell in value, though its price has been propped up by the offer of the dinner and tours; the most recent quotes place it at about $13. The top 220 holders of the Trump coin, who are entitled to the dinner, spent nearly $148 million for the privilege, according to an estimate by Reuters.

More than half of the biggest holders appear to be foreign entities, according to an analysis by Bloomberg. That implies that the purchases might be designed to circumvent federal laws barring foreigners from making political contributions in the U.S.

Democratic Sens. Adam Schiff of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts demanded that the federal Office of Government Ethics, an independent executive branch agency, open an inquiry into the “severe risk that President Trump and other officials may be engaging in ‘pay to play’ corruption by selling presidential access to individuals or entities, to include foreign nationals and corporate actors with vested interests in federal action, while personally enriching the President and his family.”

DWF, a crypto firm based in the United Arab Emirates, announced last month that it had bought $25 million in coins issued by the Trump-affiliated firm World Liberty Financial, in part to “enhance regulatory engagement with U.S. policymakers.” Freight Technologies, a Houston logistics company, announced April 30 that it had borrowed $20 million to buy Trump coins, calling the transaction “an effective way to advocate for fair, balanced, and free trade between Mexico and the US.”

The unease has spread to Republicans on Capitol Hill, who fear that the Trumps’ crypto deals will undermine their efforts to enact crypto-friendly regulations.

“This gives me pause,” Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), a leader in the legislative movement to pass a pro-crypto law, told NBC News. “Even what may appear to be ‘cringey’ with regard to meme coins, it’s legal, and what we need to do is have a regulatory framework that makes this more clear, so we don’t have this Wild West scenario.”

Trump’s activities already have derailed, if temporarily, the so-called GENIUS Act, which would regulate a form of cryptocurrency known as “stablecoins,” which are supposedly pegged to the value of underlying currencies such as dollars. Schiff and eight other Senate Democrats who had supported the measure have bailed on it, making passage in its current form virtually impossible.

Democrats in both chambers have introduced the “End Crypto Corruption Act,” which would bar the president, vice president, members of Congress and high-level executive branch appointees from issuing, sponsoring or endorsing any “cryptocurrency, meme coin, token, non-fungible token, stablecoin, or other digital asset that is sold for remuneration.”

Even some crypto promoters are no happier than the politicians. “They’re plumbing new depths of idiocy with the memecoin launch,” Nic Carter, a crypto investor and Trump supporter, told Politico.

As a crypto category, memecoins are disdained even by many participants in the field. They generally have even less utiilty or authenticity than mainstream cryptocurrencies, often originate as joke investments, and ride waves of pure hype. The Trump coin has no discernible value apart from its identification with Trump himself.

I asked the White House for comment on the accusations of corruption and received this reply from spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt: “President Trump is compliant with all conflict-of-interest rules, and only acts in the best interests of the American public.”

The memecoin isn’t Trump’s only venture into crypto, though some of his arrangements seem designed to give him plausible deniability if legal or ethics questions are raised. World Liberty Financial, which markets a crypto token designated $WLFI and a stablecoin designated USD1, is 60% owned by Trump and members of his family, who are entitled to up to 75% of the proceeds of sales of $WLFI.

The firm’s website features an image of Trump striking a heroic pose and says the WLFI token is “inspired by Donald J. Trump.” In the small print it asserts, however, that “any references to or quotes or imagery attributed to or associated with Donald J. Trump or his family members should not be construed as an endorsement or representation or warranty.”

Crypto investors really stepped up to the plate with political donations during the 2024 election cycle. Fairshake, the super PAC representing the class, spent nearly $41 million in contributions. That included $13 million to defeat two congressional candidates in Democratic primaries, Rep. Katie Porter (D-Irvine) and Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-New York). Both were known to favor stricter regulation of the asset class, and both lost their races.

The biggest crypto firms spent lavishly in 2023 and 2024 to fatten Fairshake’s war chest, which collected more than $162 million in that time frame; Coinbase contributed $46.5 million, Ripple Labs, $45 million and Andreessen Horowitz, a major crypto investor, $44 million. Much of the total was funneled to two other crypto-related political action committees, according to federal election records.

After the election, many of the firms, like more traditional businesses, made contributions of $1 million or more to Trump’s inauguration fund.

One can hardly deny that the crypto camp has gotten its money’s worth from the Trump administration so far. The Securities and Exchange Commission has dropped or deferred more than a dozen enforcement cases against Ripple, Coinbase, Gemini, Kraken and other crypto promoters.

The largest victory arguably belongs to Coinbase, the biggest crypto trading platform in the U.S. The SEC in 2023 charged the firm with running an unlawful trading exchange and marketing unregistered securities. The case reflected the SEC’s position that what crypto firms are marketing are securities by a different name, and thus need to be registered as securities so buyers and sellers get the same legal protections as stock and bond investors.

A federal judge in New York cleared the enforcement action to move ahead in 2024, after finding that the SEC had made a plausible case that Coinbase was operating illegally. The SEC dropped the case in February. Coinbase had asserted that the SEC was wrong “on the facts and the law,” and that “the case should never have been filed in the first place.”

Earlier this month, the agency settled its case against Ripple, which it had charged in 2020 with having raised $1.3 billion through unregistered securities. As part of the settlement, the SEC agreed to return to Ripple $75 million of a $125-million penalty it held in escrow. The settlement elicited a crisp rebuke from Commissioner Caroline A. Crenshaw, a member of the commission’s Democratic minority.

Crenshaw noted that the deal was part and parcel of the SEC’s effective abandonment of crypto regulation. “This settlement, alongside the programmatic disassembly of the SEC’s crypto enforcement program, does a tremendous disservice to the investing public,” she wrote.

That won’t be the end of the deregulation drive. On April 7, Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche — who was Trump’s defense attorney in the New York criminal case that resulted in guilty verdicts on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records — ordered an end to Justice Department regulatory cases based on interpreting crypto assets as securities or commodities. That closed down the government’s principal regulatory initiative against crypto promoters.

Blanche directed the DOJ’s Market Integrity and Major Frauds Unit to “cease cryptocurrency enforcement,” and disbanded the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team, “effective immediately.”

There doesn’t seem to be any sign that Trump’s involvement with crypto will slow down even as he disembowels the government’s regulatory capacity over crypto ventures.

World Liberty Financial recently announced that Abu Dhabi would use its stablecoin to invest $2 billion in Binance, a multinational crypto firm that pleaded guilty and paid a $4.3-billion penalty in 2023 on charges of financial crimes including money laundering. Binance’s chief executive, Changpeng Zhao, also pleaded guilty and spent four months in U.S. prison.

Last month, the SEC put its civil case against Binance on hold for at least 60 days.

On its investor advice webpage, the SEC used to post a warning on its website about crypto. “Trendy investments are especially ripe for fraudsters so be aware there is a real risk of fraud,” it said. “Cryptocurrencies may be today’s shiny, new opportunity but there are serious risks involved.”

That page has been taken down.

It was one of US President Donald Trump’s most ambitious executive orders, and it came just hours after he took office for his second term: ending the United States’ decades-long policy of birthright citizenship.

And just three days after Trump issued the order, a federal judge in Washington state blocked the decree from going into effect. In the months that followed, two other federal judges joined in issuing nationwide injunctions.

On Thursday, the issue will reach the US Supreme Court, with the 6-3 conservative dominated bench set to hear oral arguments in the case. What the court decides could be transformative.

Proponents have long argued that the practice of granting citizenship to all those born on US soil is woven into the national fabric.

American Civil Liberties Union executive director Anthony Romero did not mince words in January, when he called Trump’s order a “reckless and ruthless repudiation of American values”, destined to create a “permanent subclass of people born in the US who are denied full rights as Americans”.

Meanwhile, a smaller but vocal contingency, empowered by Trump, has maintained that the practice is based on faulty constitutional interpretation and serves as an incentive for undocumented migration. The Trump administration has called it “birth tourism”.

Here’s what to expect from Thursday’s hearing:

What time will it start?

The hearing will start at 9am local (14:00 GMT).

What is at stake?

The most fundamental question that could be answered by the top court is whether birthright citizenship will be allowed to continue.

Proponents point to the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, which reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”.

A subsequent 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v Wong Kim Ark, interpreted the language as applying to all immigrants, creating a precedent that has since stood.

Some studies estimate that about 150,000 immigrant infants are born with citizenship every year under the policy.

The Trump administration, in contrast, has embraced the theory that babies born to noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US, and therefore are not constitutionally guaranteed citizenship.
Speaking to reporters in April, Trump described a scenario of “tourists coming in and touching a piece of sand and then all of a sudden, there’s citizenship”. He has embraced the theory that the 14th Amendment was meant to apply only to former slaves, and not newly arriving immigrants

At the time, Trump predicted it would be “easy” to win the case based on that logic.

Could the outcome be more complicated?

Yes. The Trump administration has taken a strategically unique tack in the case.

In their emergency filing to the Supreme Court, they have focused on the actions of the three judges who blocked Trump’s order from going into effect nationwide.

They argue the orders extend beyond the judges’ authorities and should only apply to the plaintiffs or jurisdictions directly connected to Trump’s executive order.

Theoretically, the Supreme Court could rule on whether the judges can issue nationwide injunctions, without ruling on whether birthright citizenship is, in fact, protected by the Constitution.

For example, if the justices rule that the lower judges exceeded their power, but do not make a determination on the constitutional merits of birthright citizenship, the executive order would only be blocked in the 22 states that successfully challenged Trump’s order.

Attorneys General in those states had challenged the order in a joint lawsuit, with a federal judge in Massachusetts ruling in their favour in February.

Birthright citizenship would effectively be banned in 28 other states unless they also successfully challenge the order or until the Supreme Court makes a future ruling.

The possibility has split legal scholars, with some arguing it is unlikely the Supreme Court would make the narrower decision on the scope of the lower judges’ power without also ruling on the underlying constitutional merits of birthright citizenship.

Could the ruling extend beyond birthright citizenship?

Yes. If the justices do decide to only address the scope of the lower judges’ power, the implications could extend far beyond the birthright citizenship question.

It would also apply to several other Trump executive orders that have been blocked by a federal judge’s national injunction, also called “universal injunctions”. Those include several Trump executive orders seeking to unilaterally transform the federal government, the military, and how funding is disbursed to states, to name a few.

In a written filing in the birthright citizenship case, the Department of Justice pointed to the wider implications, saying the need for the Supreme Court’s “intervention has become urgent as universal injunctions have reached tsunami levels”.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs in the Maryland case that successfully challenged Trump’s birthright order said doing away with national injunctions would create different tiers of rights depending on an individual’s geographical location.

“An infant would be a United States citizen and full member of society if born in New Jersey, but a deportable noncitizen if born in Tennessee,” they wrote in a court filing.

For the last 18 months, the city of Rancho Palos Verdes has been struggling to address a worsening local emergency — the dramatic expansion of an ancient landslide zone that has torn homes apart, buckled roadways and halted utility services.

Triggered by a succession of heavy winter rains in 2023 and 2024, the ongoing land movement has upended the lives of residents and cast the city into financial uncertainty. Without significant outside aid, officials say they expect to spend about $37 million this fiscal year on emergency landslide mitigation — a sum nearly equal to the city’s annual operating budget.

Now, to make matters worse, the Trump administration has announced that it will cease funding the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities grants — a major pot of money the city hoped to use to finance a long-term prevention and stabilization plan.

“The BRIC program was yet another example of a wasteful and ineffective FEMA program,” read the administration announcement. “It was more concerned with political agendas than helping Americans affected by natural disasters.”

For the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, the action amounts to the likely loss of $16 million for stabilization work. It also marks a striking reversal in federal support for local slide mitigation efforts.

In September 2024, a campaigning Trump visited his nearby Trump National Golf Club to say that government needed to do more to help residents in the slide area. “The mountain is moving and it could be stopped, but they need some help from the government. So, I hope they get the help,” Trump said.

Last week, city officials again extended a local emergency declaration as the crisis continues to pose unprecedented strain on city finances.

“We are running out of money quickly,” Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor Dave Bradley said at a recent City Council meeting. “We are dramatically coming to the end of our rope to be able to [continue landslide mitigation efforts]. … We are spending major percentages on our total budget on this one issue.”

The majority of those allocated funds have gone toward a collection of new underground “de-watering” wells, which pump out the groundwater that lubricates landslide slip planes — a strategy that geologists have credited with helping to ease the movement in recent months.

Millions of dollars have also gone toward repeated repairs to Palos Verdes Drive South — which continues to crack and shift — as well as efforts to fill fissures, improve drainage and maintain important infrastructure, such as sewer and power lines.

While the city isn’t yet facing a major budget shortfall, its reserve funds have quickly dwindled over the last two years. By next fiscal year — which begins in July — the city expects to have only $3.5 million in unallocated capital improvement reserves, down from $35 million three years ago, according to city data. And while landslides have been the most pressing concern of late, city officials say they now face an estimated $80 million in other capital projects.

“Without a doubt, we need outside help for this landslide,” said Ramzi Awwad, the city’s public works director. He said the city is working to find and apply for other federal and state funding sources, but has run into roadblocks because landslides are not typically included within most disaster or emergency response frameworks.

“This is a disaster … very much exacerbated by severe weather and severe climate change,” Bradley recently testified before the California Assembly Committee on Emergency Management. He called the growing price tag for necessary response “unsustainable.”

Many areas of the Rancho Palos Verdes landslide complex — which covers more than 700 acres and includes about 400 homes — are still moving as much as 1.5 feet a month, damaging property and infrastructure, according to the city. Other sections that shifted several inches a week at the peak of movement in August 2024 have slowed or completely halted. City officials attribute those improvements to the ongoing mitigation projects as well as a much drier winter — but they say more work is needed to keep the area safe and accessible.

Officials argue the loss of FEMA funding could stymie long-term slide prevention efforts that were in the works for years before land movement drastically accelerated last year.

The Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Project, which calls for the installation of a series of water pumps called hydraugers, as well as other measures to keep water from entering the ground, was initially awarded a $23-million FEMA BRIC grant in 2023, Awwad said. The grant was later reduced to $16 million.

The project is separate from the city’s ongoing emergency response, but key to long-term stability in the area, Awwad said.

Rancho Palos Verdes officials dispute the administration’s assertion that the BRIC grant program is “wasteful and ineffective.” Instead, they say it represented a lifeline for a small city that has long dealt with landslides.

For decades, the city’s most dramatic landslide — the Portuguese Bend slide — has moved as much as 8.5 feet a year, or approximately an inch or two per week. Last summer, it was moving about a foot a week. Other nearby landslides, including Abalone Cove and Klondike Canyon, also saw dramatic acceleration last year, but those areas are not a part of the long-term stabilization plan.

Shown is a view of a large fissure in Rancho Palos Verdes’ Portuguese Bend neighborhood. Landslides have accelerated in the city following back-to-back wet winters in 2023 and 2024.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

“Losing the BRIC funding will jeopardize the city’s ability to implement long-term efforts to slow the Portuguese Bend landslide and prevent the kind of emergency we are experiencing now from happening again,” Megan Barnes, a city spokesperson, said.

Because BRIC grants were earmarked for preventive measures, the city was unable to use the money for its emergency response. But in recent weeks, the city completed the first phase of the long-term project — planning, engineering and final designs — after FEMA approved $2.3 million for that initial work.

Officials say the city has yet to receive that portion of the funding, and it is now unclear whether it ever will.

“We are still seeking clarification on the next steps for what, if any, portion of the BRIC grant may be available,” Barnes said. “We continue to strongly urge our federal, state and county partners to recognize the urgency of this situation and continue to support the city in protecting our residents and vital infrastructure.”

Awwad said it’s not just the local residents who benefit from such stabilization efforts; it also helps the thousands of motorists who use Palos Verdes Drive South and thousands more residents who rely on the county-run sewer line that runs alongside the road.

“This is a regional issue,” Awwad said.

Barnes said the city is considering applying to FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for the project, but securing state or federal funding for stabilization projects has been a challenge.

After the Biden administration declared the 2023-2024 winter storms a federal disaster, the city applied to FEMA for over $60 million in disaster reimbursements, linking its landslide mitigation work to the heavy rainfall. But FEMA officials rejected almost all of the city’s request.

The city has appealed that decision, but it seems unlikely federal officials will reverse course. In a recent letter to FEMA about the appeal, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services recommended the appeal not be granted because the landslides “were unstable prior to disaster” and therefore not a “direct result of the declared disaster.”

“Cal OES agrees with [the city] that the winter storms… may have greatly accelerated the sliding,” the letter said. “However … the pre-existing instability dating back to 2018 makes that work ineligible per FEMA policy. “

The most significant outside funding the city has received has come from Los Angeles County. Supervisor Janice Hahn secured $5 million for the landslide response — more than $2 million of which has been distributed to homeowners for direct assistance through $10,000 payments. The county’s flood control district also allocated the city $2 million to help cover costs preparing for the rainy season.

In 2023, the city also received $2 million from Congress after U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) helped secure the funds for landslide remediation.

The city’s most dramatic financial support — if it comes through — would be a $42-million buyout program that was awarded last year by FEMA. With that money, city officials expect a buyout of 23 homes in the landslide zone, 15 of which have been red-tagged, or deemed unlivable. FEMA has yet to allocate those funds, Barnes said, but even if it does, none of the money would go toward slide mitigation or prevention.

In the face of such difficulties, city officials have thrown their support behind a bill that could change how the state classifies emergencies.

Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates) introduced AB 986, which would add landslides as a condition that could constitute a state of emergency — a change that could free up a pool of state funds for Rancho Palos Verdes.

He called the bill “a common sense proposal” after seeing what the Rancho Palos Verdes landslide zone has been dealing with, but similar bills in the past have failed.

“The Palos Verdes peninsula … has been witnessing what I call a slow-moving train wreck,” Muratsuchi testified at an Emergency Management Committee hearing last month. “Homes are being torn apart. … The road is being torn apart, utilities are being cut off. By any common sense definition: a natural disaster.”

The Ethereum price increased by 45% to $2,600 this week, triggering a frenzy within its meme coin ecosystem.

Among the top performers are Neiro, Turbo, and MAGA ($TRUMP) – but an expert says that MIND of Pepe could be next to explode.

Ethereum Meme Coins Season Begins With Scorching Hot Gains

The Ethereum meme coin sector is back with projects across the board generating substantial gains.

Neiro is one of today’s top performers with a 38% pump, taking its price to $0.00059. However, its weekly and monthly gains are even more impressive. Neiro has rocketed 185% this week and 225% this month.

It’s a similar story for Turbo Trump. This token, which is a play on the Turbo and Official Trump meme coins, has seen a massive 222% rise in the past 24 hours, putting it up 550% from this time last week.

This comes on a backdrop of Ethereum’s rapid price gains. It’s up 8% today, 45% this week, and 63% this month. Yes, in percentage gains, it’s less impressive than the returns provided by Neiro and Turbo, but in market cap gains, it’s one of the biggest runners among all financial assets.

Ethereum’s market cap has increased by $106 billion in the last seven days. In comparison, Microsoft, the world’s largest company, has seen a market cap increase of $100 billion in the same window, despite being valued over 10x higher than Ethereum.

Could Ethereum Meme Coins be This Cycle’s Smartest Play?

Ethereum’s deep liquidity and rapid price moves provide its ecosystem meme coins with a resounding edge.

Not only is Ethereum’s market cap exploding, but its ecosystem boasts a deep DeFi infrastructure, which could bolster token prices in the coming months. Here’s why:

According to DeFiLlama, Ethereum has a DeFi total value locked (TVL) of $63 billion. This is dry powder locked up in Ethereum DeFi protocols, mostly accruing an APY below 10%.

Traders are becoming increasingly aware of the lucrative returns that ecosystem tokens are providing, so we could potentially see a wealth rotation from low-yield Ethereum DeFi protocols into high-growth tokens like meme coins.

This, in turn, could further rocket Ethereum meme coin prices.

But while the entire Ethereum ecosystem looks bullish right now, one project that smart money traders are watching closely is MIND of Pepe, a Pepe-themed Ethereum meme coin with its own AI agent.

New Ethereum Meme Coin MIND of Pepe Raises $9M as Presale Enters Final Stage

MIND of Pepe isn’t your average meme coin; it’s a project that introduces cutting-edge agentic AI through a light-hearted, meme coin outfit.

The project features artwork and branding in the style of Pepe coin, one of Ethereum’s most popular meme coins.

However, it’s agent capabilities are unlike anything else on the market. It can scan social media and blockchain data to identify trends and trading opportunities which it will share with $MIND holders.

It’s a way for meme coin fans to stay ontop of the market without having to be locked in 24/7 – the agent will do that for you.

But here’s where it starts to really stand out: if the agent notices a gap in the market, it can launch its own tokens. Think projects like Goatseus Maximus and Fartcoin – they were both created by AI.

$MIND holders will also get insider access to these token launches, which could lead to serious gains. Imagine buying Fartcoin on day one. CoinMarketCap data says you’d be up 2,837,406% now.

With a blend of memetics and technological innovations, MIND of Pepe has the best of both worlds. For that reason, analysts expect huge gains, with Borch Crypto predicting a 20x.

The project is undergoing a presale and has raised $9.1 million so far.

However, the presale is set to end in 17 days, so investors wishing to get in early should act fast.

Visit MIND of Pepe Presale

This article is for informational purposes only and does not provide financial advice. Cryptocurrencies are highly volatile, and the market can be unpredictable. Always perform thorough research before making any cryptocurrency-related decisions.